Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles (Browne, 1883)/Article XVII

Part of Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles (Browne, 1883).

Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election

De Prædestinatione et Elections.

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. 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: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

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, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

The Latin text as printed:

PRÆDESTINATIO ad vitam, est æternum Dei propositum, quo ante jacta mundi fundamenta, suo consilio, nobis quidem occulto, constanter decrevit, eos quos in Christo elegit ex hominum genere, a maledicto et exitio liberare, atque (ut vasa in honorem efficta) per Christum, ad æternam salutem adducere. Unde qui tam præclaro Dei beneficio sunt donati, illi Spiritu ejus, opportuno tempore operante, secundum propositum ejus, vocantur, vocationi per gratiam parent, justificantur gratis, adoptantur in filios Dei, Unigeniti ejus Jesu Christi imagini efficiuntur conformes, in bonis operibus sancte ambulant, et demum ex Dei misericordia pertingunt ad sempiternam felicitatem.

Quemadmodum prædestinationis, et electionis nostræ in Christo pia consideratio, dulcis, suavis, et ineffabilis consolationis plena est, vere piis, et iis qui sentiunt in se vim Spiritus Christi, facta carnis, et membra, quæ adhuc sunt super terram, mortificantem, animumque ad cœlestia et superna rapientem: tum quia fidem nostram de æterna salute consequenda per Christum plurimum stabilit, atque confirmat, tum quia amorem nostrum in Deum vehementer accendit: ita hominibus curiosis, carnalibus, et Spiritu Christi destitutis, ob oculos perpetuo versari prædestinationis Dei sententiam, pernitiosissimum est præcipitium, unde illos diabolus protrudit, vel in desperationem, vel in æque pernitiosam impurissimæ vitæ securitatem. Deinde promissiones divinas sic amplecti oportet, ut nobis in sacris literis generaliter propositæ sunt, et Dei voluntas in nostris actionibus ea sequenda est, quam in verbo Dei habemus, diserte revelatam.

Section I. — History

THE XVIIth Article is almost, word for word, the same as the original Article of 1552.

The questions concerning God's eternal predestination are by no means peculiar to the Christian religion. The Essenes among the Jews, Zeno and the Stoics, and the followers of Mohammed, were all rigid predestinarians; believing that all the affairs of the world and the actions of the human race were ordered by an eternal and inexorable decree.

In the Christian Church there has never been any doubt or question, but that the Scriptures teach us concerning the election and predestination of God. All Christians believe in the doctrine of election. The question is, therefore, not whether the doctrine of election is true, but what the meaning of election is. Now on this point there is a vast variety of sentiment.

1. Calvinism. The doctrine of Calvin and the Calvinists is, that from all eternity God predestinated a certain fixed number of individuals, irrespective of anything in them, to final salvation and glory; and that all others are either predestined to damnation, or, at least, so left out of God's decree to glory that they must inevitably perish.

2. Arminianism. The doctrine of Arminius and the Arminians is, that, from all eternity, God predestinated a certain fixed number of individuals to glory; but that this decree was not arbitrary, but in consequence of God's foreknowledge, that those so predestinated would make a good use of the grace given; and that, as God necessarily foresees all things, so foreseeing the faith of individuals, He hath, in strict justice, ordered His decrees accordingly.

According to both these schemes, election is to life eternal: and the elect are identical with the finally saved.

3. Nationalism. The opinion of Locke and some others is, that the election, spoken of by God in Scripture, does not concern individuals at all, but applies only to nations; that, as God chose the Jews at one time to be His people, so He has since ordained certain nations to be brought into the pale of the Christian Church. Here the elect are all Christian nations.

4. Ecclesiastical Election. Others have held, that, as the Jews of old were God's chosen people, so now is the Christian Church; that 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 baptismal privileges, not to final glory; and the elect are identical with the baptized; and the election constitutes the Church.

5. Some have held, that there is an election to baptism of some individuals, and again an election out of the elect: so that some are elected by God's inscrutable decree to grace, and from among these some by a like inscrutable decree to perseverance and to glory. Here the elect are, in one sense of the word, identical with the baptized; in another sense of the word, with the finally saved.

6. Lastly,, some have taught, that, whereas to all Christians grace enough is given to insure salvation, if they will use it, yet to some amongst them is given, by God's eternal decree, a yet greater degree of grace, such that by it they must certainly be saved. This is the theory which has sometimes been called Baxterian, from Richard Baxter, the distinguished nonconformist divine.

The subject of predestination naturally embraces other cognate subjects, such as original sin, free-will, final perseverance, particular redemption, and reprobation. The three former have been considered under the IXth, Xth, and XVIth Articles respectively, and much of the history of the predestinarian controversy will be found under the history of those Articles.

From the classification above given it will be evident, that the mere use of the terms election or predestination by a writer will not at all determine in what sense that writer uses them, nor to which of the six classes above enumerated his doctrines may be assigned.

Among the earlier fathers, especially those of the apostolic age, the language used is mostly general, and therefore difficult to fix to a particular meaning.

Clement of Rome speaks of a sedition in the Church, "as alien and foreign from the elect of God." "Ye contended," he writes, "day and night for the whole brotherhood, that, with compassion and a good conscience, the number of His elect might be saved." To the same Church of Corinth he speaks of God as having "made us unto Himself a part of the election. For thus it is written, When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels; His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance. And in another place he saith, Behold the Lord taketh to Himself a nation from the midst of the nations, as a man taketh the first-fruits of his threshing-floor, and from that nation shall come the Holy of Holies." "In love have been perfected all the elect of God." "Now God, who seeth all things, the Father of spirits and the Lord of all flesh, who hath elected our Lord Jesus Christ, and us by Him to be His peculiar people, grant to every soul," &c.

Ignatius addresses the Church of Ephesus as "blessed through the greatness and fulness of God the Father, predestinated before the worlds continually to glory, — glory enduring, unchangeable, united, and elected in true suffering according to the will of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God." In the same manner he addresses "the holy Church which is in Tralles" as "beloved by God the Father of Jesus Christ, elect and worthy of God."

Hermas, in the book of his Visions, constantly speaks of God's elect: "God, who hath founded His holy Church, will remove the heavens and the mountains, the hills and the seas, .... all things shall be made plain to His elect," .... or, "shall be filled with His elect." "Canst thou report these things to the elect?" "Go ye and declare to the elect of God His mighty acts." The Apostles, bishops, and ministers are said to have ministered to the elect of God.

Here we have the elect spoken of as identical with the Church. We even find language which seems to prove that Hermas considered the elect as in a state of probation in this world which might end either in their salvation or in their condemnation. "Then shall their sins be forgiven which they have committed, and the sins of all the saints, who have sinned even to this day, if they shall repent with all their hearts, and put away all doubts out of their hearts. For the Lord hath sworn by His glory concerning His elect, having determined this very time, even now, if any one shall sin, he shall not have salvation." On the other hand, in one passage he seems to speak of a mansion of glory for the elect in the world to come: "The white colour represents the age to come, in which shall dwell God's elect; since the elect shall be pure and spotless unto eternal life."

These are the principal passages in the Apostolical Fathers concerning election and predestination. It would be a great point gained, if we could clearly ascertain their sentiments on this subject. They lived before philosophy had produced an effect on the language of theology. Now there is no question on which philosophy is likely to have produced greater effect than on the question concerning God's eternal decrees. When, therefore, we come to the writings of such men as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, we naturally doubt, whether they speak the language of the Church in their days, or the language of their own thoughts and speculations.

In the passages above cited, there is no marked trace of any of the three schemes which have been designated respectively as Calvinism, Arminianism, or Nationalism. One passage from Clement may seem to speak the language of Nationalism; but it is only in appearance. That ancient father applies the term "nation" to the Christian Church; but it is plain that he merely means, that, as the Israelites of old were chosen to be God's peculiar people, so now His Church is, as it were, a nation chosen out of the nations. He speaks indeed of "the number of God's elect being saved," as though there were a definite number of God's elect, who should be saved in the end; language which, we shall see, is used also by Justin and Irenæus. Whether this was intended in the sense which would be affixed to it by Augustine or Calvin, must be a question. We may almost certainly say, it was not so used by Justin Martyr. There is also one passage, the last quoted from Hermas, in which the term elect seems used of those who are chosen to life eternal. All the other passages from the apostolical fathers identify the whole Church of God with the election, and therefore the elect with the baptized. It is most undesirable to put any force on language of such importance as the language of writers in the apostolic age.

But on a fair review of the whole, it can hardly appear that the fathers speak of election in any sense but one of the two following: either (1) as an election of individuals to the Church and to baptism; or (2) possibly as an election first to baptism, and then a further election out of the baptized to glory. On the first sense, the passages seem clear and decided; on the second, it seems but reasonable to admit that there is great doubt.

In the history of the doctrine of free will, we saw that Justin Martyr ascribed free agency to all human beings, and argued that God does not cause actions, because He foresees them. On the contrary, he defends Christians against the charge that they believed in a fatal necessity. Our belief in the predictions of the prophet does not oblige us to believe that things take place according to fate. "This only," he says, "we hold to be fated, that they who choose what is good shall obtain a reward; that they who choose what is evil shall be punished." So again soon after, he says that "we assert future events to have been foretold by the prophets, not because we say that they should so happen by fatal necessity, but because God foreknew the future actions of all men." And presently again he speaks of God deferring the punishment of the wicked, till the "foreknown number of the good and virtuous should be fulfilled." Accordingly Bishop Kaye has concluded that, if Justin Martyr speaks anywhere of predestination to life eternal, it is in the Arminian sense, or, as it has been called, ex prævisis meritis (from foreseen merits). But when Justin Martyr especially speaks of God's election, he appears clearly to intend by it an election of individuals out of the world, and the bringing them by His calling to be of His peculiar people the Church. Thus, he is speaking of the Christian Church in antithesis to the Jewish, and he says, "We are by no means a despicable people, nor a barbarous nation, like the Phrygians and the Carians; but God hath elected us, and has manifested Himself to those who asked not for Him. Behold I am God, saith He, to a nation that called not on my Name." Then, speaking of the calling of Abraham by the grace of Christ, he continues, "By the same voice He hath called us all, and we have come out of the polity in which we lived, living evilly, after the manner of the other inhabitants of the world," &c.

It is probable therefore that, to whatever cause Justin Martyr may have assigned the final salvation of Christians, their election he considered to be a calling in from the people of the world to be members of the Church of Christ; as Abraham was called from among the Gentiles to be the founder of the chosen race.

Irenæus, like Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr, speaks of a definite number of persons who shall be saved, and holds the opinion that the world shall last till this number is perfected. Yet he does not hint that any particular individuals were predestinated, of which that number should consist. As regards predestination to eternal death, he clearly speaks of that as the result of God's foreknowledge of the wickedness of those whom He condemns, and says that the reason why God gave Pharaoh up to his unbelief was that He knew he never would believe. He asserts too, that God puts no constraint on any one to believe; but that, foreknowing all things, He has prepared for all fitting habitations. Thus he was evidently no believer in the doctrine since called reprobation, nor in irresistible grace, or effectual calling.

But it is probable that the meaning which he attached to the Scriptural term election was, that God chose and elected certain persons to baptism and to be members of His Church. In speaking of Esau and Jacob, as types of the Jewish and the Christian Church, he explains St. Paul's language, in the ninth of Romans, as meaning that God, who knoweth all things, was foretelling the rejection of the Jews, and the election of the Gentile Church. Explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says that God first planted the vineyard of the human race by the creation of Adam and the election of the fathers; then let it out to husbandmen, the Jews, surrounding it with a hedge, built a tower, and elected Jerusalem. But when they did not believe, He sent His Son, whom they slew. Then the tower of election being exalted and beautified, the vineyard, no longer walled round, but laid open to the world, is let to other husbandmen, who will bring forth the fruits. For the Church is everywhere illustrious; everywhere the wine-press is dug round, because those who receive the Spirit are everywhere. And soon after, he says that the same Word of God who formerly elected the patriarchs has now elected us. Thus it appears that Irenæus looked on the Jews as formerly, and on the Christian Church as now, the elect people of God; and so he calls "the Church the synagogue or congregation of God, which He hath collected by Himself."

Tertullian says little or nothing to guide us to his view of the doctrine of election, except that, in arguing against certain heretics, he maintains that it is unlawful so to ascribe all things to the will of God as to take away our own responsibility and freedom of action.

Clement of Alexandria appears to have used the same language as his predecessors, concerning the Church as the election, and all Christians as the elect of God. He especially defines the Church as the general assembly of the elect. So he quotes Hermas as saying, that the Church is held together by that faith by which God's elect are saved. The Church, according to Clement, is the body of Christ, a holy and spiritual company; but they who belong to it, but live not uprightly, are, as it were, but the flesh of the body. He holds the Church to be one, into which are collected all those who are righteous according to the purpose (κατὰ πρόθεσιν, according to purpose); and continues, that the Church is one, which collects together by the will of God those already ordained, whom God hath predestinated.

But then when we come to the ground or cause of God's election, we find that Clement seems to speak of it as being God's foreknowledge. Thus, in the last passage referred to, he says, the Church embraces "all whom God hath predestinated, having foreknown that they would be righteous before the foundation of the world." So he speaks of each person as partaker of the benefit, according to his own will; for the choice and exercise of the soul constitutes the difference of the election. Accordingly, Bishop Kaye thinks, "it is evident that Clement must have held the doctrine of predestination in the Arminian sense;" and Mr. Faber says, that "this prescientific solution is for the first time enounced by the speculative Clement of Alexandria."

Whether Justin and Irenæus had in any degree enounced the same before, may be a fair question. The causation of sin they clearly refused to attribute to God, declaring that, where He is said to have hardened, it was because He foresaw the sinner was irreclaimable. And though Clement of Alexandria speaks more clearly than either of them, concerning God's foreknowledge as the ground of His predestination, yet he does not differ from them in the view that the Church of God is composed of the elect people of God.

Some divines of the Roman Communion have endeavoured to discover the doctrines of St. Augustine in the writings of Clement; but it is only because he ascribes the beginning, the continuance, and the perfection of religion in the soul, to the grace of God, that they have thence inferred that, as it is all of grace, so it must all be of absolute predestination. Yet every one, but slightly acquainted with the predestinarian controversy, must know, that the chief disputants on every side of this troublesome argument have all alike agreed in ascribing the whole work of religion in the soul to God's grace and the operations of His Spirit; the question having only been, Is that grace irresistible or not? Is the freedom of the will utterly extinguished by it, or not? The passage especially referred to by Bossuet, in proof of the Austinism (so to speak) of Clement, is the prayer with which he concludes his Pædagogue, and which is simply, — that God would grant us, that following His commandments we may become fully like Him, and that He would grant, that all passing their lives in peace, and being translated into His kingdom or polity, having sailed over the waves of sin, may be borne through still waters by His Holy Spirit, and may praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; day and night unto the perfect day. And to this prayer he adds, that "Since the Pædagogue (i. e. the Word of God) has brought us into His Church, and joined us to Himself, it will be well for us being there to offer up thanksgiving to the Lord, in return for His gracious guidance and instruction. This passage, however, rather corresponds with what we have seen to be the general doctrine of Clement, as probably of his predecessors, namely, that God's election brought men to baptism and to His Church, and that His grace, given to them there, enabled them, if not determined to quench the Spirit, to go on shining more and more unto the perfect day.

From this time forth, although the belief in God's election of individuals into His Church, and a frequent identification of the Church with the elect, is observable in all the patristic writers of eminence; yet when the question concerning the final salvation of individuals was brought into contact with the question of the Divine decrees, that solution of the difficulty, since called Arminian, was generally adopted.

Origen, the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, himself the greatest speculator of early times, and the great maintainer of the freedom of the will, adopted it in its fullest and most definite form. He expressly says, that God, who foresees all things, no more causes man's sins, nor forces his obedience, than one who looks at a person walking in a slippery place is the cause that he should stumble. Such was the progress of opinion among the early Christians, and so general was the spread of the foreknowledge theory in the third and fourth centuries, that our great Bishop Andrewes considered almost all the fathers to have believed in a foreseen faith, "which," he adds, "even Beza confesses;" and Hooker, himself an illustrious disciple of St. Augustine, says that "all the ancient fathers of the Church of Christ have evermore with uniform consent agreed that reprobation presupposeth foreseen sin as a most just cause, whereupon it groundeth itself."

So much was this the case, that even St. Augustine himself, when first entering upon the question of predestination, taught that it was contingent on God's foreknowledge of the faith or unbelief of individuals. But his farther progress in the Pelagian controversy, where he had to contend against those who grievously abused the doctrine of man's free will, led him to reconsider the questions concerning the grace of God and His predestination and purpose. Indeed he asserts, and that truly, that, before the Pelagian controversy, he had written concerning free will almost as if he had been disputing against Pelagians. But his statements concerning God's foreknowledge, as antecedent to his predestination, he absolutely retracts. Thenceforth his belief appears to have been, that Adam fell freely, that, all mankind being born in sin, God's inscrutable wisdom and mercy, for good reasons, but reasons unknown to us, determined to rescue some from sin and damnation. Accordingly, He prepared His Church, and predestinated some to be brought into the Church by baptism, who thereby became partakers of regenerating grace. These, and these only, could be saved. Yet there was a further decree, even concerning the regenerate, namely, that some of them should die before committing actual sin, and therefore be saved; but that, of those who grew up to maturity, some should be led on by the grace of God to final perseverance, and therefore to glory: whereas others, not being gifted according to God's eternal purpose with the grace of perseverance, would not persevere at all; or if they persevered for a time, would in the end fall away and be lost. It would have been just that all should be damned; it is therefore of free mercy that some should be saved. God therefore graciously frees some, but leaves others by just judgment to perdition. "Of two infants, both born in sin, why one is taken and the other left; of two grown persons, why one is called so as to follow the calling, the other, either not called, or not called so as to follow the calling; these are in the inscrutable decrees of God. And of two godly men, why to one is given the grace of perseverance, but to another it is not given, this is still more in the inscrutable will of God. Of this, however, all the faithful ought to be certain, that one was predestinated, and the other not," &c. The baptized and regenerate may be called the elect, when they believe and are baptized, and live according to God; but they are not properly and fully elect, unless it is also ordained that they shall persevere and live holily to the end.

These statements of St. Augustine gave considerable uneasiness to many who agreed with him in his general views of doctrine. The members of the monastery of Adrumetum were especially troubled by these discussions. In consequence, St. Augustine wrote his treatises De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, and De Correptione et Gratia. In a short time, the clergy of Marseilles doubting the soundness of St. Augustine's view, Prosper and Hilary wrote letters to him, stating the scruples of the Gallican clergy, thanking him in general for his defence of the truth, but saying that hitherto the Catholic faith had been defended, without recourse to such a theory of predestination. The Gallican clergy state, that their own belief had hitherto been that God's predestination was founded on prevision of faith.

Of these Massilians there appear to have been two parties, one infected with Semi-Pelagian errors, the other sound and catholic. Both, however, agreed in being startled and displeased with the doctrines of St. Augustine, and in esteeming them new and unheard of. Among those who were thus dissatisfied, Prosper mentions Hilary of Arles, a bishop of the first learning and piety of that age.

In answer to these letters Augustine wrote his two treatises, De Prædestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiæ. He acknowledges, as in his book of Retractations, that he now saw more clearly than formerly; yet he says that he had implicitly taught the same doctrines before, but heresies bring out more clearly the truth. He also says, the earlier fathers did not write much on these doctrines, because they had no Pelagius to write against. Still he thinks that he can find support from passages in St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Ambrose. From St. Cyprian he quotes, "We must glory in nothing, as we have nothing of our own." And again he refers to St. Cyprian's interpretation of the petition in the Lord's prayer, "Hallowed be thy Name," as meaning, that we pray that His name may be sanctified in us. And this he further explains to signify that we pray that we, who have been sanctified in baptism, may persevere in that which we have begun. Hence St. Augustine concludes that Cyprian held the doctrine of perseverance in the Augustinian sense of that doctrine.

From Gregory Nazianzen he cites an exhortation to confess the doctrine of the Trinity, which concludes with an expression of confident hope, that God, who first gave them to believe, would also give them to confess the faith.

From Ambrose he alleges two passages. In one, St. Ambrose simply argues, that, if a man says he followed Christ because it seemed good to himself to do so, he does not deny the will of God, for man's will is prepared by God. The other passage is as follows: "Learn also, that He would not be received by those not converted in simplicity of mind. For if He would, He could from indevout have made them devout. Why they received Him not, the evangelist has himself related, saying, Because His face was as of one going to Jerusalem. For the disciples were desiring to be received into Samaria, but those whom God thinks good He calls, and whom He wills He makes religious."

These are the passages alleged by St. Augustine, in proof that more ancient fathers than himself held his view of predestination. With the exception of the last from St. Ambrose, it will appear to most people, that, if St. Augustine had not brought weightier arguments from Scripture than he did from the fathers, he would hardly have succeeded in settling his system so firmly in the minds of his followers. The language of the last passage indeed appears, at first sight, strongly to resemble the language of St. Austin. But it is by no means clear that even this passage does not accord with the views of those fathers who held the election of individuals to the Church and to baptismal grace, but believed that any farther predestination was from foreseen faith; and it is capable of proof, that such were in fact the views generally held by St. Ambrose. This passage, if fairly interpreted, contains probably no contradiction of his other statements.

It is, of course, a question of no small interest, whether St. Augustine's elders in the faith held the same doctrine with himself on the predestination of God, or whether he was the first to discover it in Scripture. That so learned a divine could find no stronger passages in any of their writings than those just mentioned, is much like a confession of the difficulty of the proof. His own opinions must have great and deserved weight; but if they were novel, we can hardly accept them as true. The passages already quoted from the earliest fathers are all we have to guide us in this question; for it seems now an admitted fact, that from Origen to St. Augustine irrespective individual election to glory was unheard of.

Soon after the correspondence with the Massilian Christians, A. D. 430, St. Augustine died, "without any equal," says Hooker, "in the Church of Christ, from that day to this." Prosper followed in the steps of his great master with constancy and success; but he exceeded him in the strength of his predestinarian sentiments: for, whereas Augustine held that the wicked perish from their natural sins, being passed over in God's decree, but not actually predestinated to damnation, Prosper seems plainly to have taught the reprobation of the non-elect. He drew up a book of sentences from the writings of St. Augustine; and with the aid of Celestine and Leo, Bishops of Rome, was successful in opposing the Pelagian heresy.

Not long after, we read of a priest named Lucidus, who, taking up Augustine's predestinarianism, carried it into lengths to which Augustine had never gone. Faustus, Bishop of Riez, who himself was inclined to Semi-Pelagianism, succeeded in inducing him to recant. A synod was assembled at Arles, A. D. 475, where the errors of Lucidus were condemned, and his recantation was received. Some of these errors were, that "God's foreknowledge depresses men to hell, — that those who perished could not have been saved, — that a vessel of dishonour could never become a vessel of honour, — that Christ did not die for all men, nor wills all men to be saved.""

In the year 529 was held the second Council of Orange, at which Cæsarius of Arles presided. Its canons and decrees bear the signatures of fourteen bishops, and were approved by Boniface II., Bishop of Rome. They are chiefly directed against the errors of the Semi-Pelagians. But to the twenty-five canons on this subject there are appended three declarations of doctrine. 1. That by the grace of baptism all baptized persons can, if they will, be saved. 2. That if any hold that God has predestinated any to damnation, they are to be anathematized. 3. That God begins in us all good by His grace, thereby leading men to faith and baptism, and that, after baptism, by the aid of His grace, we can do His will. These propositions of the Council of Orange, coming immediately after canons against Semi-Pelagianism and exaggerated notions of free will, express as nearly as possible a belief in Ecclesiastical Election, (i. e. election to the church and to baptismal privileges,) but reject the peculiar doctrines of St. Austin.

Some mention was made of Goteschalc in the history of the Xth Article. He was a Benedictine monk of the convent of Orbais in the diocese of Soissons, about A. D. 840. He was a great admirer of St. Augustine, and revived his views of predestination; though, like Lucidus, he appears to have gone much beyond his master. If we may believe the account of his doctrines given by Hincmar, he taught that there was a double predestination, of the elect to glory, and of the reprobate to death. God, of His free grace, has unchangeably predestinated the elect to life eternal; but the reprobate, who will be condemned by their own demerits, He has equally predestinated to eternal death. He taught also, that Christ did not die for those who were predestinated to damnation, but only for those who were predestinated to life. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, opposed him with great zeal, and summoned a council at Mentz, A. D. 848, which condemned Goteschalc's opinions, and then sent him to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who assembled a synod at Quiercy, which degraded him from the priesthood, obliged him to burn the tract which he had delivered to Rabanus Maurus in justification of his doctrines, and committed him to prison, where he lay for twenty-one years, and then died.

The discussions between Thomists and Scotists, among the schoolmen, have also been referred to under Art. X. The former were followers of Thomas Aquinas, who himself followed St. Augustine. They appear to have held irrespective predestination to life; but to have admitted neither reprobation, partial redemption, nor final perseverance, in the sense in which the two former were held by Lucidus and Goteschalc.

We saw, under Article X., how strongly Luther, in his earlier writings, spoke of the slavery of the human will, and the necessity under which it was constrained. In the first edition of the Loci Theologici, Melancthon held language of the same kind. But in the second edition these expressions were all withdrawn; and, as we saw in the last Article, Luther, later in life, condemned what are called Calvinistic views of election. Archbishop Laurence has shown, by abundant and incontrovertible evidence, that after the diet of Augsburg, A. D. 1530, when the famous Lutheran Confession was presented to the Emperor, Luther and Melancthon entirely abandoned the high views of absolute predestination which they had at first adopted. Luther continually exhorted his followers to abstain from all such speculations, and to believe that because they were baptized Christians, they were God's elect, and to rest in the general promises of God. Luther expressly approved of the later edition of Melancthon's Loci Theologici, put forth A. D. 1535, in which his former views of predestination were retracted. He himself speaks of the predestinarian controversies set on foot in his own time, as the work of the devil. Melancthon too, in the strongest terms, condemned what he called the Stoical and Manichean rage, and urged all people to fly from such monstrous opinions.

The doctrine both of Luther and Melancthon, after their first change of opinion, appears to have been very nearly that which, we have reason to conclude, was the doctrine of the earliest fathers. They clearly taught that Christ died for all men, and that God willed all to be saved. They held, that all persons brought to baptism and to the Church were to be esteemed the elect people of God, having been led to baptism by the gracious purpose of God. They taught too, that God's purposes were to be generally considered, and His promises generally interpreted, i. e. as implying His general designs concerning Christians and the human race, and as concerning classes of persons, according to their respective characters.

Zuinglius was an absolute predestinarian, ascribing all things to the purpose and decrees of God; but he materially differed from the Calvinist divines who followed him, in holding that God's mercies in Christ, though given irrespectively, and from absolute predestination, were bestowed not only on Christians, but on infants who die without actual sin, and on heathens, who "had grace to live a virtuous life, though ignorant of the Redeemer."

In the Council of Trent, when the question of predestination was discussed, no fault was found with the Lutheran statements on this head; but several points were found for discussion in the writings of the Zuinglians. Many of the Tridentine divines took views of predestination similar to those of St. Augustine, though these were strongly opposed by the Franciscans. Catarinus propounded an opinion much like that afterwards held by Baxter, that of Christians, some were immutably elected to glory, others were so left that they might or might not be saved. All agreed to condemn the doctrine commonly called Final Perseverance.

Calvin, with the love of system and logical precision which was so characteristic of him, rejected every appearance of compromise, and every attempt to soften down the severity of the high predestinarian scheme. Advancing, therefore, far beyond the principles of his great master, St. Augustine, he not only taught that all the elect are saved by immutable decree, but that the reprobate are damned by a like irreversible sentence, a sentence determined concerning them before the foundation of the world, and utterly irrespective of the foreknowledge of God. Nay! God's foreknowledge of their reprobation and damnation is the result of His having predestinated it; not His predestination the result of His foreknowledge. The very fall of Adam was ordained, because God saw good that it should be so; though, why he saw good, it is not for us to say. But no doubt He so determined, partly because thereby the glory of His Name would be justly set forth. Those who are thus elect to glory, and those only, are called effectually, i. e. irresistibly; whereas the non-elect, or reprobate, have only the external calls of the word and the Church. Those thus effectually called, are endued with the grace of final perseverance, so that they can never wholly fall away from grace.

These views, with little variation, were adopted by the different bodies of Christians which were reformed on the Calvinistic model. Sufficient account has been given under Article X. of the principal proceedings of the Synod of Dort. The Remonstrants, who agreed with Arminius, and against whom that synod directed its decrees, had adopted that theory concerning God's predestination which had been current among the fathers from Origen to Augustine. They taught that God's predestination resulted from His foreknowledge. They ascribed all good in man to the grace of the Spirit of God; but they held, that God determined to save eternally those who, He foresaw, would persevere in His grace to the end, and that He destined to damnation those who, He knew, would persevere in their unbelief. These views were rejected and condemned by the synod, which distinctly enunciated the five points of Calvinism.

The disputes on the same subject, which have prevailed in the Church of Rome since the Council of Trent, were all sufficiently alluded to under Article X.

The doctrine of our own Reformers on this deep question, and the meaning of the XVIIth Article, have been much debated. The Calvinistic divines of our own communion have unhesitatingly claimed the Article as their own; although the earnest desire which they showed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to introduce the far more express language of the Lambeth Articles, shows that they were not fully satisfied with the wording of it. On the other hand, the Arminians assert that the seventeenth Article exactly expresses their own views. The Arminians agree with the Calvinists in holding that God, by his secret counsel, hath predestinated some to life eternal, others to eternal death. They differ from them in that, whereas the Calvinists attribute this predestination to God's sovereign, irrespective, and though doubtless just, yet apparently arbitrary will, the Arminians attribute it to His eternal foreknowledge. Now the Article says nothing concerning the moving cause of predestination; and therefore speaks as much the language of Arminius as of Calvin. The latter clauses of the Article appear specially designed to guard against the dangers of the Calvinistic theory, and therefore the former cannot have been intended to propound it. Moreover the sentiments concerning election most prevalent in the Church before the Reformation were that God predestinated to life and death, not according to His absolute will, but according as He foresaw future faith or unbelief; and there being no ground for supposing that the English reformers had been mixed up with any of the predestinarian controversies of Calvin and the Swiss reformers, there is every ground, it is said, for supposing that the Article ought to be taken in the Arminian, not in the Calvinistic sense.

In what sense the English reformers really did accept the doctrine of God's election, and in what sense the XVIIth Article is to be interpreted, is truly a question of considerable difficulty. The language of Cranmer and Ridley, and of our own Liturgy, Articles and Homilies, is remarkably unlike Calvin's concerning effectual calling and final perseverance. It is also clear, that the English Reformers held, and expressed in our formularies, with great clearness and certainty, the universality of redemption through Christ. So that, in three out of five points of Calvinism, Particular Redemption, Effectual Calling, and Final Perseverance, the English reformers were at variance with Calvin.

Still, no doubt, it is possible that they may have been un-Calvinistic in all these points, and yet have agreed with St. Augustine on the general notion and causation of God's predestination; for we have seen that Augustine's views were materially different from Calvin's.

It is pretty certain that Calvin's system had not produced much influence, at the time the XVIIth Article was drawn up. It is true, the first edition of his Institutes was written early in his career; and that contains strong predestinarian statements. But the great discussion on this head at Geneva, and the publication of his book De Prædestinatione, did not take place till A. D. 1552, the very year in which the Articles were put forth.

It has moreover been clearly shown, that the earlier Articles of the Church of England were drawn up from Lutheran models, agreeing remarkably with the language of Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg. Archbishop Laurence has plainly proved that the greatest intimacy and confidence existed between Cranmer and Melancthon; that for a series of years during the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. both the king and the leading reformers were most desirous of bringing Melancthon to England, and that nothing but the death of Edward VI. prevented the establishment of Melancthon in the chair of divinity at Cambridge, formerly filled by Erasmus and Bucer. All this must have been pending at the very time the XVIIth Article was composed. Nay! there is even some reason to think that Cranmer was induced to draw up this Article by suggestion of Melancthon, who, when consulted by Cranmer (A. D. 1548) on the compilation of a public confession on this particular question, wrote recommending great caution and moderation, adding that at first the stoical disputations about fate were too horrible among the reformers, and injurious to good discipline; and urging that Cranmer "should think well concerning any such formula of doctrine."

From such facts it is inferred that the Lutheran, not the Calvinist reformers, had weight, and were consulted on the drawing up of this Article; and that, as Lutheran models were adopted for the former Articles, so, although there is no Article in the Confession of Augsburg on predestination, yet the views of that doctrine current among the Lutheran divines were more likely to prevail than those among the Calvinists, who had as yet had no influence in Great Britain.

The published writings of Cranmer and Ridley have remarkably little which can lead to an understanding of their own views of God's predestination. We hear that Ridley wrote a "godly and comfortable treatise" on "the matter of God's election;" but it has never yet come to light. In the letter wherein he speaks of having prepared some notes on the subject, he says, "In these matters I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost none otherwise than the very text doth, as it were, lead me by the hand.""

Cranmer's writings are, even more than Ridley's, free from statements on God's predestination. But Archbishop Laurence has brought several passages from Latimer, Hooper, and other contemporaneous divines of the Church of England, which show that they held decidedly anti-Calvinistic sentiments, and which prove that even the Calvinism of Bradford was of the most moderate kind.

If from the writings of the reformers we pass to the formularies of the Church, the Liturgy, the Catechism, and the Homilies, we shall find that they appear to view the election of God as the choosing of persons to baptism, the elect as identical with the baptized, or, what is the same thing, with the Church of Christ throughout the world. Thus, in the Catechism, every baptized child is taught to say, "God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God." In the Baptismal Service we pray that the child "now to be baptized, may receive the fulness of God's grace, and ever remain in the number of His faithful and elect children." In the daily service we pray, "Endue thy ministers with righteousness, and make thy chosen people joyful. O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine inheritance." Where God's inheritance, the Church, is evidently the same as His "chosen" or elect "people," whom we pray that He will bless, save, and make joyful. In the Burial Service, we pray God to "accomplish the number of His elect, and hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those departed," &c. Where the we appears to be connected with God's elect. In the Homily of falling from God all Christians are plainly spoken of as the "chosen" (i. e. elect) "vineyard of God," which yet by falling away may be lost. "If we, which are the chosen vineyard of God, bring not forth good fruits, that is to say, good works .... He will pluck away all defence, and suffer grievous plagues .... to light upon us. Finally, if these serve not, He will let us lie waste, He will give us over ...." &c.

From all these considerations, it is more probable that an Article drawn up by Cranmer should have expounded the doctrine of ecclesiastical or baptismal election, than that it should have contained the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius. For both the other documents drawn up by himself, and the writings of his great counsellor, Melancthon, exhibit the clearest evidence of their belief in such ecclesiastical election. Add to which, the early fathers, whose writings Cranmer most diligently searched, are very full of the same mode of explaining the truth.

The question still remains, after all this historical probability, Will the wording of the Article bear this meaning? or are we absolutely constrained to give another interpretation to it? Persons but little acquainted with scholastic disputations and with the language of controversy are apt at first sight to think the XVIIth Article obviously Calvinistic, though others, somewhat better read, are aware that it will equally suit the doctrine of Arminius: but both might be inclined to suppose that it could not express the opinions of Melancthon and of the majority of the primitive fathers, and what, we have seen reason to conclude, were Cranmer's own opinions. Let us see whether this is the case.

In the first place then, the words of the concluding paragraph in the Article have been shown to bear so remarkable a resemblance to the language of Melancthon (language particularly objected to by Calvin), that it could hardly have been accidental. "Furthermore," it runs, "we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the word of God." The word generally is in the Latin generaliter, which means not for the most part, but universally or generically, i. e. as concerning classes of persons. Now Melancthon writes, "And if other things may be nicely disputed concerning election, yet it is well for godly men to hold that the promise is general or universal. Nor ought we to judge otherwise concerning the will of God than according to the revealed word, and we ought to know what God hath commanded that we may believe," &c.

But in the beginning of the Article we read of "predestination to life," and of God's purpose "to deliver from curse and damnation:" expressions which may seem tied to the notion of election embraced by Augustine, Calvin, and Arminius, namely, predestination to life eternal. It is, however, to be noted, that it would quite suit the way of thinking common to those who held ecclesiastical election, to speak of election to baptism as election to life, and as deliverance from curse and damnation. For the Church of Christ is that body, which, having been purchased by the Blood of Christ, is destined to life eternal, and placed in a position of deliverance from the curse of original sin. Baptism is for the remission of sin. All baptized infants have been elected therefore to life, and delivered from curse and damnation. The election to life eternal indeed is mediate, through election to the Church, not immediate and direct. Every baptized Christian has been chosen out of the world to be placed in the Church, in order that he may be brought by Christ to everlasting salvation, as a vessel made to honour. He may forfeit the blessing afterwards, but it has been freely bestowed on him. All persons endued with such an excellent benefit of God are called according to His purpose by His Spirit. They are freely justified and made Sons of God by adoption (language specially used in the Catechism of baptized children); they be made like the image of the only-begotten, Jesus Christ, for the baptized Christian is said to be regenerate after the likeness of Christ. The next step in his course is to walk in good works; the last to attain, by God's mercy, to everlasting felicity. Such language then, which is the language of the Article, suits the baptismal theory as well as the Calvinistic theory; and it has been contended with great force by Archbishop Laurence and Mr. Faber, that no other sense can be properly attached to it.

On the whole, however, it seems worthy of consideration, whether the Article was not designedly drawn up in guarded and general terms, on purpose to comprehend all persons of tolerably sober views. It is hardly likely that Cranmer and his associates would have been willing to exclude from subscription those who symbolized with the truly admirable St. Augustine, or those who held the theory of prevision, so common among those fathers whose writings Cranmer had so diligently studied. Nor, again, can we imagine that anything would have been put forth markedly offensive to Melancthon, whose very thoughts and words seem embodied in one portion of this Article, as well as in so many of the preceding. Therefore, though Cranmer was strong in condemning those who made God the author of sin, by saying that He enforced the will; though he firmly maintained that Christ died to save all men, and would have all men to be saved; though he and his fellows rejected the Calvinistic tenet of final perseverance; they were yet willing to leave the field fairly open to different views of the Divine predestination, and accordingly worded the Article in strictly Scriptural language, only guarding carefully and piously against the dangers which might befal "carnal and curious persons." After long and serious consideration, I am inclined to think this the true state of the case. I am strongly disposed to believe that Cranmer's own opinions were certainly neither Arminian nor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian; yet I can hardly think that he would have so worded this Article, had he intended to declare very decidedly against either explanation of the doctrine of election.

It seems unnecessary to do more than briefly allude to the painful controversies to which this fruitful subject gave rise in the Church of England, since the Reformation. A sufficient account was given, under Article XVI., of the disputes which led to the drawing up of the Lambeth Articles, which, though accepted by Archbishop Whitgift and a majority of the divines at Lambeth, never had any ecclesiastical authority. The first four of these were designed to express distinctly the Calvinistic doctrines of election and reprobation; though the bishops softened down a few of the expressions in Whitaker's original draught, so as to make them a little less exclusive. The Puritan party at Hampton Court wished that these "nine assertions orthodoxal" should be added to the XXXIX. Articles, and also that some of the expressions in the XXXIX. Articles which sounded most against Calvinism should be altered or modified; but their wish was not obtained. There have ever since continued different views of the doctrine of predestination amongst us, and different interpretations of this XVIIth Article. It were indeed much to be wished that such differences might cease; but from the days of St. Augustine to this day, they have existed in the universal Church; and we can scarcely hope to see them utterly subside in our own portion of it.

---

Section II. — Scriptural Proof

IN investigating the Scriptural doctrine of Election, it is of the utmost consequence to keep close to Scripture itself, and to keep clear of philosophy. The subject of God's foreknowledge and predestination must be full of difficulty, and our question can only be, what is revealed to us, not what may be abstract truth.

The disputes between the Calvinists and Arminians took, unhappily, a metaphysical, almost more than a Scriptural turn. The Calvinists were unable to believe in the contingency of events certainly foreknown, and in the absolute sovereignty of God, if limited by His knowledge of the actions of subordinate beings. The Arminians, truly contending that an action was not made compulsory because it was foreseen, held it inconsistent with the justice of God to destine some to be saved and others to be lost. Both argued from natural religion; and both gave weighty reasons for their inferences. But both should have seen that there was a limit to all such investigations, which no human intelligence could pass; and that those very arguments which reduced their adversaries to the greatest difficulties, might often, if pursued further, have told against themselves.

It is quite certain that, if we carry out our investigations on such subjects to their fullest extent, we must at length reach a point which is impassable; but where we are at least as much in difficulty and darkness as at any previous step in our course. Thus, why God, who is all holy and merciful, ever permitted sin to exist, seeing He could have prevented it; why, when sin came, not only into the creation, but into this world, He did not wholly, instead of partially, remove its curse and power; why the child derived it from its parent; why the unsinning brute creation is involved in pain and death, the wages of sin; why, whereas one half of the infants who are born die before the age of reason and responsibility, yet God does not cause all to die in infancy who, He foresees, will, if they live, live wickedly: — these and like questions, which puzzle us as to the omnipotence, the justice, or the goodness of God, and which neither Scripture nor philosophy will answer, ought to teach us that it is not designed that we should be satisfied on these deep subjects of speculation, concerning which Milton has described even angelic beings as lost in inextricable difficulty.

There is another line of reasoning, which has been taken in this controversy, somewhat more bearing on practical questions, and yet leading us beyond the reach of human intelligence. The Calvinist feels deeply that all must be ascribed to the grace of God, and nothing to the goodness of man. Therefore, he reasons, all holiness must come from an absolute decree; for, if not, why does one accept grace, another refuse it? If the grace be not irresistible, there must be something meritorious in him who receives, compared with him who resists. Both indeed may resist God's grace; but he indeed who resists the least, so as not to quench the Spirit, must be considered as relatively, if not positively, meritorious. The Arminian, on the contrary, admitting that merit is not possible for man, yet contends that the belief in an irreversible decree takes away all human responsibility, makes the mind of man a mere machine, and deprives us of all motives for exertion and watchfulness. Even these arguments lead us to difficulties which perhaps we cannot solve. We are clearly taught to believe, that sinful man can deserve no good from God, and derives all he has from Him. We are also taught to feel our own responsibility in the use of the grace given us, and the necessity of exerting ourselves in the strength of that grace. There may be some difficulty in harmonizing the two truths; but we have no right to construct a system based upon one of them, and to the exclusion of the other. If we cannot see, as many think they can, that they form parts of one harmonious whole, we must be content to accept them both, without trying to reconcile them.

Now the doctrine of Calvin rests on two premises: 1. That election infallibly implies salvation. 2. That election is arbitrary. The Arminians admit the first premiss, which is probably false, and reject the second, which is probably true. If we would fairly investigate the question, we must begin by a determination not to be biassed by the use of words, nor to suffer ourselves to be led by a train of inductive reasoning. The former is a mistake which prevails extensively on almost all religious questions, and is utterly subversive of candour and truth; the latter is altogether inadmissible on a subject so deep as that under consideration.

To begin with the old Testament, a portion of Scripture too much neglected in this controversy, we read much there of God's election: and it is perhaps to be regretted, that our authorized translation has used the words choose, chosen, choice, in the old Testament, and the words elect and election in the new Testament, whereas the original must be the same in both, and the ideas, contained under both phrases, identical.

Now who are the persons spoken of in the old Testament as God's elect or chosen people? Plainly the seed of Abraham, the children of Israel. Let us then observe, first, the ground of their election; secondly, to what they were elect?

It is quite apparent, from innumerable statements of Moses and the prophets, that the cause or ground of God's election of the people of Israel was not, as on the Arminian hypothesis, foreseen faith, but God's good pleasure, springing from motives unknown to us. It was not for "their righteousness, for the uprightness of their heart, that they went in to possess the land." The Lord did "not give them the good land to possess for their righteousness: for they were a stiff-necked people" (Deut. ix. 5, 6). "Only the Lord had a delight in their fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them above all people" (Deut. x. 15). "The Lord will not forsake His people for His great name's sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people" (1 Sam. xii. 22). "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people . . . I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee" (Jer. xxxi. 1, 3). "I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau" (Mal. i. 2, 3): a passage, which, as explained by St. Paul (Rom. ix. 13), clearly expresses God's purpose to choose the seed of Jacob in preference to that of Esau, irrespectively of the goodness of the one or the other.

The Arminian hypothesis, therefore, of foreseen faith is clearly inapplicable to the election spoken of in the books of the old Testament. The cause and ground of it was plainly God's absolute irrespective decree. But then to what was the election so often mentioned there? We have discovered its ground; can we discover the correct idea to be attached to the action itself?

It is evident that the whole Jewish nation, and none but they, were the objects of God's election. "O children of Israel . . . . you only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos iii. 1, 2). "Thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God; the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut. vii. 6). "The LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them, even you among all people, as it is this day" (Deut. x. 15). "The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments: and to make thee high above all nations which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God" (Deut. xxvi. 18, 19). And, "What one nation in the earth is like thy people, like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to Himself? . . . For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people Israel, to be a people unto Thee for ever: and Thou, LORD, art become their God" (2 Sam. vii. 23, 24). "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance" (Psal. xxxiii. 12). "The LORD hath chosen Jacob unto Himself, and Israel for His peculiar treasure" (Psal. cxxxv. 4). "Thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend . . . I have chosen thee and not cast thee away" (Isai. xli. 8, 9). "Yet now hear, O Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen" (Isai. xliv. 1). "For Jacob, My servant's sake and Israel Mine elect" (Isai. xlv. 4). "Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath even cast them off?" (Jer. xxxiii. 24).

All these passages tell exactly the same tale, and explain to us the nature and object of God's election, as propounded under the old Testament. Were the Jewish people, who are thus constantly called God's elect, elected to an unfailing and infallible salvation of their souls? Most assuredly not. Nay, they were not elected to infallible possession even of all the temporal blessings of God's people. Victory over their enemies, entrance into, in the first place, and then quiet possession of, the promised land were made contingent on their obedience to God's will (see Deut. vii., viii. passim). But that to which they were chosen, was to be God's "peculiar people," — to be "a holy people," consecrated to the service of God, — to have the covenant and the promises, and to be the Church of God. Yet still, there was "set before them life and death, cursing and blessing:" and they were exhorted to "choose life:" "that they might dwell in the land which the LORD sware to their fathers" (Deut. xxx. 19, 20).

We see therefore, first, that the cause of God's election was arbitary; secondly, that the election itself was to blessing indeed, but it was the blessing of privilege, not of absolute possession. And even of those chosen to be brought out of Egypt, and to become God's people in the wilderness, by abusing their privileges, all but two perished before they reached the promised land; and those chosen to live in Canaan, as God's Church and people then on earth, were continually provoking God's indignation, and bringing down a curse instead of a blessing upon them.

The seed of Abraham then, the children of Israel, were the only elect people of God at that time upon earth; but their election was to the privilege of being God's Church, the subjects of His Theocratic kingdom, the recipients of His grace, and the depositaries of His truth. This is the whole nature of election, as propounded to us in the Law and the Prophets. If there were any further election, and of what nature it may have been, as far as the old Testament went, was one of the "secret things, which belong to the LORD our God."

Some people indeed argue, that, if one person or body of persons is predestined to light and privilege, and another is debarred from them, it is one and the same thing as if one was predestined to salvation and another to damnation; for, if the one is not certainly saved, the other is certainly lost: and so, if election to glory be not taught, reprobation to damnation is. But this is, first of all, an example of that mode of induction which is so objectionable in questions of this sort. And next, it remains to be proved, either that privilege leads of necessity to salvation, or that absence of privilege leads inevitably to damnation. However, it will, no doubt, be generally conceded that the Jew was placed in a more favourable state for attaining salvation than the Gentile, and that, as we have seen, from an arbitrary decree of God. This, it will be said, is as inconsistent with our ideas of justice, as anything in the system of Calvin or Augustine. Admit this, and you may as well admit all. The question, however, still remains the same; not what men are willing to admit, but what the Bible reveals. This election to light and privilege is evidently analogous to those cases which we see in God's ordinary Providence: some born rich, others poor; some nursed in ignorance, others in full light; some with pious, others with ungodly parents; and now too, some in a Christian, others in a heathen land; some with five talents, others with but one. Why all this is, we cannot tell; why God is pleased to put some in a position where vice seems all but inevitable, others where goodness seems almost natural, we know not; nor again, as has been said before, why He does not ordain that all who He foresees will be wicked, should die in infancy. We know and see, that such is His pleasure. The secret motives of His will we are not told, and we cannot fathom. We are left to believe that, though hidden from us, they must be right. What we are taught is, how to avail ourselves of the privileges, whatever they may be, which we have; to escape the dangers, and profit by the advantages of our position. This is practical, and this is revealed truth.

To return to the old Testament. As we have seen, we there read much of election; and it is always election of a certain body of persons, by an arbitrary decree, to the blessings and privileges of being of the Church of God. And we observe another thing, namely, that, whereas none but the Israelites were elected to such privileges then, there were yet many prophecies of a time when other persons, individuals of other nations, should be chosen by God, and made partakers of the same privileges with the Jews, — the same privileges enhanced and exalted. Nay, the Jews are threatened, as a body, with rejection from privilege for their sins; a remnant only of them being to be retained in the possession of blessing; and with that remnant, a host from other nations to be brought in and associated.

When we come to the new Testament, we must bear in mind that the Apostles were all Jews, but their mission was to proclaim that the Jewish Church had passed away, and to bring in converts to the Christian Church. Especially St. Paul had to found a Church among the Gentiles, and to bring the Gentiles into the fold of Christ. Nothing therefore could be more natural, or more in accordance with the plan of the Apostles, than, as it were, to apologize to the Jews, and to explain to the Gentiles the new condition which the Almighty had designed for His Church in the world. It would be most natural that they should enlarge upon the truth that in God's eternal counsels there were general purposes of mercy for mankind, to be effected by means of bringing persons into Christ's Church, and therein by the graces of His Spirit conforming them to the likeness of His Son; that though hitherto His mercy in this respect had been confined to the Jews His further plans having been hid for ages and generations, yet now it was revealed that the Gentiles should with the Jews be fellow-heirs (see Col. i. 25, 26, Eph. iii. 5, 6); that, therefore, whereas heretofore the seed of Abraham had been the only chosen people of God, yet now the whole Catholic Church, composed of both converted Jews and Gentiles, were His chosen people; and God, who, of His good pleasure, for a time elected only the Jews, had, by the same good pleasure, now chosen individuals both of Jews and Gentiles, to be members of His Church and heirs of the grace of life. In thus reasoning, it is most natural that the Apostles should constantly compare the state of Christians with the state of the Jews, and so continually use old Testament language, adopting the very expressions of Moses and the prophets, and simply applying them to the altered condition of the world, and to the enlarged condition of the Church. Thus, were the Jews constantly spoken of as a holy people, as called and chosen of God? In like manner, St. Paul begins scarce any Epistle without calling the Church addressed in it either holy, called, or elect (see Rom. i. 6, 7; 1 Cor. i. 9, 24; 2 Cor. i. 1; Eph. i. 1; Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 2; 1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 8–10; Heb. iii. 1, &c.). Were the Jews spoken of as "a peculiar people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation" (Exod. xix. 5, 6)? St. Peter addresses the Christian Church as "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvellous light; which in times past were not a people, but now are the people of God."" So too, in his very first salutation of the Church, composed as it was of Jewish and Gentile converts, he calls them "strangers or sojourners, scattered abroad, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1 Pet. i. 2); where, like St. Paul, he no doubt uses this expression with special reference to the objection which the Jews made to the calling of the Gentiles. They thought that God's plan was only to call the children of Israel. But no! the Apostle speaks of the Church (a Gentile as well as a Jewish Church) as chosen and preordained, by a foreknown and predestinated counsel of God; kept secret hitherto, but now made manifest.

This mode of treating the question is nowhere more apparent than in the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians. There St. Paul is addressing a Gentile Church. Having first saluted its members, as "the holy persons in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus," he at once proceeds to give God thanks for having blessed the Christian Church with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus, according as He had chosen that Church in Him before the foundation of the world; the object of such election being, that it might be made holy and without blame before him in love; God having predestinated its members to the adoption of children (as the Jews had of old been children of God), through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph. i. 3–6). He then proceeds to speak of the Church's blessing in having redemption through the Blood of Christ, and says, that now God has made known His hitherto hidden will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of time all things were to be collected together under one Head in Christ, both things in heaven and things on earth (vv. 9, 10). And he continues, that in Him "we (that is, those who have believed from among the Jews) have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to His purpose," &c. "In whom ye also (ye Gentile Christians) trusted, after that ye heard of the word of truth" (vv. 11–13).

The Apostle next proceeds to give thanks for their conversion and faith, and to pray for their further grace and enlightenment (Eph. i. 15, 16; ii. 10). He reminds them of their former Gentile state, when they were without Christ, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel (ii. 11, 12); and tells them, that now they are brought nigh by Christ, who hath broken down the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, and reconciled both Jews and Gentiles to God in one body, preaching peace to the Gentiles, who were far off, and to the Jews, who were nigh (vv. 13–17). He says, that they are therefore now no longer far off from God, but are made fellow-citizens of the same city, the Church, with the saints, and of the same household of God, and are built on the same foundation, and all grow together to one holy temple in the Lord (vv. 18–22). All this was a mystery, in other ages not made known, but now revealed to apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that it had been part of God's eternal purpose of mercy that Gentiles should be fellow-heirs with Jews, both members of the same body, the Church, and partakers of the same promise in Christ by the Gospel (iii. 3–6).

The Churches, which the Apostles thus addressed as elect, and on which they impress the blessings and privileges of their election, are still treated by them as in a state of probation, and their election is represented, not merely as a source of comfort, but also as full of responsibility. Thus, to the Ephesians, of whose election we find St. Paul spoke so strongly in the first chapter, he says, "I . . . beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called" (Ephes. iv. 1). And he thenceforth continues through the whole of the remainder of the Epistle, teaching them how to live, so as not to forfeit their blessings — not to be "like children tossed to and fro" (iv. 14) — not to "walk henceforth as other Gentiles" (17) — not to grieve the Spirit (30) — not to be partakers with fornicators and unclean livers, who have no inheritance in God's kingdom (v. 1–7) — to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (11) — to "walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise" (15) — not to be "drunk with wine, but to be filled with the Spirit" (18) — to "put on the whole armour of God, that they might be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," knowing that they had a contest against wicked spirits; that so they might "be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand" (vi. 11, 12, 13).

Just similar is his language to other Churches. Thus, the Philippians, whom he calls "saints," he bids to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. ii. 12; compare iii. 12–16). The Colossians, whom he speaks of as having been "translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son," he bids "to put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved," all Christian graces (iii. 12–17); and to avoid all heathen vices (iii. 5–9); and that on the very principle that they were to consider themselves as brought into a new state in Christ (iii. 9, 10). The Thessalonians, whom he tells that he "knows their election of God" (1 Thess. i. 4), he warns against sloth and sleep (1 Thess. v. 6), urges them to put on Christian armour (v. 8, 9), exhorts them not to "quench the Spirit" (v. 19). And to Timothy he says of himself, that he "endures all things for the elect's sake;" and that, not because the elect are sure of salvation, but in order that "they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim. ii. 10).

In exactly the same manner, St. Peter, as we have seen, addresses those to whom he writes as "elect," and whom he calls "an elect generation," (1 Pet. i. 2; ii. 9): but he still urges them to "abstain from fleshly lusts," (ii. 11); to "pass the time of their sojourning here in fear," (i. 17); to be "sober and watch unto prayer" (iv. 7); to "give diligence to make their calling and election sure" (2 Pet. i. 10); to "beware lest, being led away with the error of the wicked, they fall from their own steadfastness" (2 Pet. iii. 17).

All this is in the same spirit and tone. It is, allowing for the change of circumstances, just as the prophets addressed the Jews. The prophets addressed the Jews, and the apostles addressed Christians, as God's chosen people, as elect, predestinated to the Church, to grace, to blessing. But then, they urge their blessings and election as motives, not for confidence, but for watchfulness. They speak to them as having a conflict to maintain, a race to run; and they exhort them not to quench the Spirit, who is aiding them, to beware lest they fall from the steadfastness of their faith, to be sober and watch to the end.

Let us turn next to the Epistle to the Romans. In the ninth chapter more especially, St. Paul considers the question of God's rejecting the unbelieving Jews, and calling into His Church a body of persons elected from among Jews and Gentiles. The rejection of his fellow-countrymen he himself deeply deplores; but there was a difficulty and objection arising, which he sets himself directly to solve. God has chosen Israel for His people. He had given them "an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David." Could then the rejection of the Jews be explained consistently with God's justice, His promises, and His past dealing with His people? Objections of this kind the Apostle replies to. And he does so by showing that God's dealings now were just as they had always been of old. Of old He gave the promise to Abraham, but afterwards limited it to his seed in Isaac. Then again, though Esau and Jacob were both Isaac's children, He gave the privileges of His Church to the descendants of Jacob, not to those of Esau; and that with no reference to Jacob's goodness; for the restriction of the promise was made before either Jacob or Esau were born; exactly according to those words by Malachi, where God, speaking of His calling of the Israelites, says, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Rom. ix. 6–13.) This restriction therefore of God's promises, first to Isaac, and then to Jacob, corresponded exactly with His purposes now revealed in the Gospel, namely, to bring to Christian and Church privileges that portion of the Jews who embraced the Gospel, and to cast off the rest who were hardened in unbelief. From verse 14 to verse 19, St. Paul states an objection to this doctrine of God's election, which he replies to in verse 20. The objection he states thus, "Shall we say then that there is injustice with God?" For the language of Scripture seems to imply that there is, God being represented as saying, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," which shows that it is of God's mercy, and not of man's will. Again, it is said to Pharaoh, "For this cause have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee." So that it seems to be taught us, that God shows mercy on whom He will, and hardens whom He will. It may therefore be reasonably said, why does He yet find fault with the sinner; "for who hath resisted His will?" (vv. 14–19). This objection to God's justice the Apostle states thus strongly, that he may answer it the more fully. His reply is, that such complaints against God for electing the Jewish people, and placing Pharaoh in an exalted station, and bearing long with his wickedness, are presumptuous and arrogant. "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?" (vv. 20, 21). Shall man complain because God ordained the Jews for a place of eminence in His Church, or raised Pharaoh as king of Egypt to a position of honour, and yet a position in which he would only the more surely exhibit his wickedness? We know not the secret motives of God's will. What if the real reason of all this were, that "God, willing to manifest His wrath, and to make His power known," as He did with Pharaoh, so now also has endured with much long-suffering the unbelieving Israelites, who are "vessels of wrath" already "fitted to destruction," in order "that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared for a position of honour, even on us, who are that Church of Christ, which He hath now called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (vv. 20–24).

If we will cast aside preconceived doctrines and conventional phraseology, it will surely appear that such is the plain meaning of this memorable chapter. The Apostle is explaining the justice of God's dealings, in having long borne with the Jewish race, and now casting them off and establishing a Church composed partly of the remnant of the Jews, partly of Gentile converts. Herein He only acted as He had ever done, calling first the seed of Abraham His chosen, then the seed of Isaac, elected from the elect, and again (elected once more out of them) the seed of Jacob; and as He had borne long with Pharaoh's wickedness, that He might make him the more signal monument of His vengeance, so perhaps it was with the Jews. He had borne long with them, partly in mercy, and partly that He might magnify His power, and show the severity of His justice.

The same subject is kept in view, more or less, throughout the two following chapters. In the 11th he again distinctly recurs to the bringing of a portion of the Jewish race into the Church of Christ, not indeed the whole nation — but restricted again, as it once was in Isaac, and afterwards in Jacob. He instances the case in which all Israel seemed involved in one common apostasy, and yet God told Elias that there were seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Even so it was at the time of the Gospel. All Israel seemed cast off, but it was not so; a remnant remained, a remnant was called into the Church, chosen or elected into it by the grace of God. "Even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Rom. xi. 5.

We may now proceed to the passage which, even more than any of the preceding, may be considered as the stronghold either of the Calvinist or the Arminian. Each claims it as unquestionably his own. The passage is Rom. viii. 29, 30: "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified."

The Calvinist contends that the passage plainly speaks of predestination to eternal glory; the various clauses showing the progress, from the first purpose of God, through calling and justifying, to the final salvation of the elect soul. The Arminian replies, that, though it is true that the passage speaks of predestination to eternal glory, yet it is evidently on the ground of foreseen faith; for it begins with the words "whom He did foreknow;" showing that His foreknowledge of their acceptance of His grace was the motive of His predestination of their glory. That the Arminian has scarcely ground for this argument seems clear from the use of this word "foreknew" in Rom. xi. 2; where "God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew," can scarcely mean otherwise than "whom He had predestinated to be His Church of old." But then, though it seems that the passage speaks of an arbitrary purpose, yet it cannot be proved to have any direct reference to future glory. The verbs are all in the past tense, and none in the future, and therefore cannot certainly be translated as future. Either "whom He hath justified, them He hath glorified," or "whom He justifies, them He also glorifies," would correctly render it; since the aorist expresses either a past or a present. Hence the passage was uniformly understood by the ancients as referring not to future glory of Christians in the world to come, but to that present glorification of the elect, which consists in their participation in the high honour and privilege bestowed by God upon His Church. And, as they viewed it, so grammatical accuracy will oblige us to understand it. And if so, then we must interpret the passage in correspondence with the language in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in the chapter already considered in the Epistle to the Romans. "Those whom God in His eternal counsels chose before the foundation of the world, His elect people, the Church, He designed to bring to great blessings and privileges; namely, conformity to the likeness of His Son, calling into His Church, justification, and the high honor and glory of being sons of God and heirs of the kingdom of heaven.""

It would exceed our limits, if we were to consider all the passages bearing on this doctrine in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. The parable of the vineyard (Matt. xx. 1–16), and of the wedding feast (Matt. xxii. 1–14), evidently speak the language of ecclesiastical election, the calling of the Jews, and then the election of the halt and maimed heathen from the highways and hedges into the Christian Church.

In the Acts, we read of God's "adding to the Church such as should be saved," (τοὺς σωζομένους, those who were being saved,) where the words plainly mean that God brought into His Church those whom He chose to the privileges of a state of salvation (Acts ii. 47).

In Acts xiii. 48, we hear of persons "believing, as many as were ordained to eternal life," which sounds at first much like the doctrine of Calvin. But in the first place, the word here rendered ordained, is nowhere else employed in the sense of predestinated; and if it is to be so interpreted here, we must perforce understand it as meaning, that they were predestinated to the reception of that Gospel which is itself the way to eternal life, and which, if not abused, will surely lead to it. Otherwise the passage would prove, that all those who heard the Apostles and embraced the Gospel and the Church, must have been finally saved; a thing in the highest degree improbable, and wholly inconsistent with experience.

In the Gospel of St. John we have two or three passages, supposed to speak markedly the language of Calvinism. 1. "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John vi. 37). 2. "And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" (John vi. 39). 3. "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John vi. 70). 4. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of My hand. My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all; and no (man) is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand" (John x. 27–29). 5. "Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John xv. 19). 6. "Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy Name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John xvii. 11, 12).

Some of these passages, taken by themselves, undoubtedly bear a very Calvinistic aspect, especially the second and the fourth. But if we take them altogether, they explain each other. The whole then seems a connected scheme. The Father gives a Church of disciples to His Son; who also Himself chooses them from the world. Those that the Father thus gives to the Son, assuredly come to Him, and are joined unto his fellowship. It is not the will of God that any of these should perish. "He willeth not the death of a sinner." "It is not the will of the Father that one of these little ones should perish." Whilst our blessed Lord was on earth with His Church, He preserved and guarded it by His presence; and when He left it, He prayed the Father that He would guard and support His disciples, "not taking them from the world, but keeping them from the evil" (John xvii. 15). The faithfulness of God is pledged to support His tempted servants, and His greatness secures them against all dangers, and assures them, that none shall be able to take them out of Christ's hands. Yet that their final perseverance and salvation are not so certainly secured, as that, because they have been given to Christ they can never at last be condemned, is evidenced by the case of Judas Iscariot, who, in the third and sixth of the above passages, is numbered with Christ's elect, and with those whom the Father had given Him; yet still is mentioned, as one who, notwithstanding Christ's own presence and guidance, had fallen away and perished. He, like the rest, had been of Christ's sheep, elect to discipleship and grace; but, having quenched the Spirit, and been unfaithful, he was not chosen to salvation.

Whatever then be philosophically true concerning man's freedom and God's sovereignty and foreknowledge; the question which is practical to us is, How far has God revealed in His word the grounds of His dealings with us? If the foregoing investigation has been fairly conducted, we must conclude, that the revelation which has been given us concerns His will and purpose to gather together in Christ a Church chosen out of the world, and that to this Church and to every individual member of it He gives the means of salvation. That salvation, if attained, will be wholly due to the grace of God, which first chooses the elect soul to the blessings of the baptismal covenant, and afterwards endues it with power to live the life of faith. If, on the other hand, the proffered salvation be forfeited, it will be in consequence of the fault and wickedness of him that rejects it. Much is said of God's will, that all should be saved, and of Christ's death as sufficient for all men; and we hear of none shut out from salvation, but for their own faults and demerits. More than this cannot with certainty be inferred from Scripture; for it appears most probable that what we learn there concerns only predestination to grace, there being no revelation concerning predestination to glory.

The old Testament, our blessed Lord, St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, and after them the earliest Christian Fathers, seem thus in perfect harmony to speak of God's election of individuals to His Church. Of any further election we cannot say that they did speak. New and more subtle questions were brought in by philosophers, like Clement and Origen, which were more fully worked out by the powerful intellect of St. Augustine, whose contact with philosophic heretics tempted him to philosophic speculations. In later times the disputations of the schoolmen still mingled metaphysics with theology; till the acute but over-bold mind of Calvin moulded into full proportion a system, which has proved the fertile source of discord to all succeeding generations. In the hands of the great Genevan divine it was not allowed to be quiet and otiose, but became the basis and groundwork of his whole scheme of theology. Much of that scheme was sound and admirable; but it was so made to bend and square itself to its author's strong view of predestination, that it lost the fair proportions of Catholic truth.

Deep learning and fervent piety have characterized many who have widely differed in these points of doctrine. It is well for us, disregarding mere human authority and philosophical discussions, to strive to attain the simple sense of the Scriptures of God. But it is not well, when we have satisfied ourselves, to condemn those who may disagree with us; nor, because we see practical dangers in certain doctrines, to believe that all who embrace those doctrines must of necessity fall into evil, through the dangers which attach to them. Discussions on subjects such as this do not, perhaps, so much need acuteness and subtilty, as humility and charity.

See also

• Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles

Editorial Notes

Source: E. Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Historical and Doctrinal, edited with notes by J. Williams, D.D., Bishop of Connecticut (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1883), pp. 401–442.