ART. ARTICLE XVII. Of Predeftination and Election. 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, fecret to us, to deliver from curfe and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Chrifft unto everlafting Salvation as vellels made to honour. Wherefore then which be endued with fo ercellent a bencüt of God, be called according to God's purpose, by his Spirit working in due feafon. Thep through grace obep the calling, they be justiäcd freely, thep be made Sons of God by Adoption, they be made like the Image of his only begotten Son Jesus Chrift: They walk religiou@y in good works, and at length by God's mercy thep attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Cleaion in Chrift is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and fluch as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Chrift, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their carthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenlp things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their Faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Chriff, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards Cod: So for cuzious and carnal perfons, lacking the Spizit of Chrift, to have continually befoze their Epes the sentence of God's Predeftination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into defpezation, or into wretchlelnefs of most unclean living, no lefs perilous than defpezation. Furthermore, We muft receive God's promifes in fuch wile, as they be generally set forth to us in Holp Scripture: And in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have exprefsly declared unto us in the Word of God. TH HERE are many things in feveral of the other Articles which depend upon this; and therefore I will explain it more fully for as this has given occafion to one of the longeft, XVII. longeft, the fubtileft, and indeed the most intricate of all the ART. queftions in divinity; fo it will be neceffary to open and examine it as fully as the importance and difficulties of it do require. In treating of it, I fhall, First, State the question, together with the consequences that arife out of it. Secondly, Give an account of the differences that have arisen upon it. Thirdly, I fhall fet out the ftrength of the opinions of the contending parties, with all poffible impartiality and exactness. Fourthly, I fhall fee how far they agree, and how far they differ; and shall shew what reason there is for bearing with one another's opinions in thefe matters; and in the Fifth and last place, I fhall confider how far we of this Church are determined by this Article, and how far we are at liberty to follow any of thofe different opinions. The whole controverfy may be reduced to this fingle point as its head and fource: Upon what views did God form his purposes and decrees concerning mankind? Whether he did it merely upon a defign of advancing his own glory, and for manifefting his own attributes, in order to which he fettled the great and univerfal scheme of his whole creation and providence? Or whether he confidered all the free motions of those rational agents that he did intend to create, and according to what he forefaw they would choose and do, in all the various circumftances in which he might put them, formed his decrees? Here the controverfy begins; and when this is fettled, the three main queftions that arife out of it, will be foon determined. The first is, Whether both God and Chrift intended that Chrift should only die for that particular number whom God intended to fave? Or whether it was intended that he should die for all, so that every man that would, might have the benefit of his death, and that no man was excluded from it, but because he willingly rejected it? The fecond is, Whether thofe affiftances that God gives to men to enable them to obey him, are of their own nature fo efficacious and irrefiftible, that they never fail of producing the effect for which they are given? Or, whether they are only fufficient to enable a man to obey God; fo that their efficacy comes from the freedom of the will, that either may co-operate with them, or may not, as it pleases? The third is, Whether fuch perfons do, and muft certainly perfevere, to whom fuch grace is given? Or, whether they may not fall away both entirely and finally from that ftate? There are alfo other queftions concerning the true notion. of liberty, concerning the feebleness of our powers in this lapfed ftate, with feveral leffer ones; all which do neceffarily take ART. take their determination from the decifion of the first and main XVII. queftion; about which there are four opinions. The firft is, of thofe commonly called Supralapfarians, who think that God does only confider his own glory in all that he does and that whatever is done, arifes as from its first cause, from the decree of God: that in this decree, God confidering only the manifeftation of his own glory, intended to make the world, to put a race of men in it, to conftitute them under Adam as their fountain and head: that he decreed Adam's fin, the lapfe of his pofterity, and Chrift's death, together with the falvation or damnation of fuch men as should be most for his own glory: that to those who were to be faved, he decreed to give fuch efficacious affiftances, as fhould certainly put them in the way of falvation; and to those whom he rejected, he agreed to give fuch affistances and means only as fhould render them inexcufable: that all men do continue in a ftate of grace, or of fin, and fhall be faved or damned, according to that first decree: so that God views himself only, and in that view he defigns all things fingly for his own glory, and for the manifefting of his own attributes. The fecond opinion is of those called the Sublapfarians; who fay, that Adam having finned freely, and his fin being imputed to all his pofterity, God did confider mankind, thus loft, with an eye of pity; and having, defigned to rescue a great number out of this loft ftate, he decreed to fend his Son to die for them, to accept of his death on their account, and to give them fuch affiftances as should be effectual both to convert them to him, and to make them perfevere to the end: but for the reft, he framed no pofitive act about them, only he left them in that lapsed state, without intending that they should have the benefit of Chrift's death, or of efficacious and perfevering affiftances. The third opinion is of thofe who are called Remonftrants, Arminians, or Univerfalifts, who think that God intended to create all men free, and to deal with them according to the ufe that they fhould make of their liberty: that therefore he forefeeing how every one would ufe it, did upon that decree all things that concerned them in this life, together with their falvation and damnation in the next; that Chrift died for all men; that fufficient affiftances are given to every man, but that all men may choose whether they will use them, and perfevere in them, or not. The fourth opinion is of the Socinians, who deny the certain prefcience of future contingencies; and therefore they think the decrees of God from all eternity were only general; that such as believe and obey the Gofpel fhall be saved, and that fuch as live and die in fin fhall be damned: but that there were no special decrees made concerning particular perfons, thefe XVII. being only made in time, according to the state in which they A R T. are they do alfo think that man is by nature fo free and fo entire, that he needs no inward grace; fo they deny a special predeftination from all eternity, and do alfo deny inward affiftances. This is a controversy that arifes out of natural religion: for if it is believed that God governs the world, and that the wills of men are free; then it is natural to enquire which of thefe is fubject to the other, or how they can be both maintained whether God determines the will? or if his Providence follows the motions of the will? Therefore all those that believed a Providence have been aware of this difficulty. The Stoicks put all things under a fate; even the Gods themfelves: if this fate was a neceffary series of things, a chain of matter and motion that was fixed and unalterable, then it was plain and downright atheism. The Epicureans fet all things at liberty, and either thought that there was no God, or at least that there was no Providence. The Philofophers knew not how to avoid this difficulty, by which we see Tully and others were fo differently moved, that it is plain they defpaired of getting out of it. The Jews had the fame question Jofeph. among them; for they could not believe their Law, without Ant. Jud. acknowledging a Providence: and yet the Sadducees among them 2.-de Bell. afferted liberty in fo entire a manner, that they fet it free Jud. lib. ii. from all restraints: on the other hand, the Effens put all things. 7. under an abfolute fate: and the Pharifees took a middle way; they afferted the freedom of the will, but thought that all things were governed by a Providence. There are alfo fubtle difputes concerning this matter among the Mahometans, one fect afferting liberty, and another fate, which generally prevails among them. lib. xviii. c. C. I. Pæd. lib. i. Philocal. In the first ages of Chriftianity, the Gnofticks fancied that Iren, adv. the fouls of men were of different ranks, and that they sprang Her. lib. i. from different principles, or Gods, who made them. Some were Epiph carnal, that were devoted to perdition; others were fpiritual, Her. 31. and were certainly to be faved; others were animal of a mid-Clem. Al. dle order, capable either of happiness or mifery. It seems. that the Marcionites and Manichees thought that fome fouls Orig. Periwere made by the bad God, as others were made by the good. archon. 1. 3 In oppofition to all these, Origen afferted, that all fouls were c. 21. by nature equally capable of being either good or bad; and Explan. that the difference among men arofe merely from the freedom 12. Ep. ad of the will, and the various ufe of that freedom: that God Rom. left men to this liberty, and rewarded and punished them according to the ufe of it: yet he afferted a Providence, but as he brought in the Platonical doctrine of pre-existence into the government of the world; and as he explained God's XVII. localia. Ruffin. Peror. in Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. Chryf. Ep. AN EXPOSITION OF ART. loving Jacob, and his hating of Efau, before they were born, and had done either good or evil, by this of a regard to what they had done formerly; fo he afferted the fall of man in Adam, and his being recovered by grace; but he still maintained an unrestrained liberty in the will. His doctrine, though much hated in Egypt, was generally followed over all the Eaft, particularly in Palestine and at Antioch. St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Eafil drew a fyftem of divinity out of his works, in which that which relates to the liberty of the will is very fully fet forth that book was much studied in the Eaft. Orig. Phi- Chryfoftom, Ifidore of Damiete, and Theodoret, with all their followers, taught it fo copiously, that it became the received doctrine of the Eaftern Church. Jerome was fo much in love with Origen, that he tranflated fome parts of him, and fet Ruffin on tranflating the reft. But as he had a fharp quarrel with the bishops of Paleftine, fo that perhaps difpofed him to change his thoughts of Origen: for ever after that, he fet himfelf much to difgrace his doctrine; and he was very fevere on Ruffin for tranflating him: though Ruffin confefles, that, in tranflating his works, he took great liberties in altering Verf. Com. feveral paflages that he disliked. One of Origen's difciples was Pelagius, a Scottish monk, in great esteem at Rome, both for his learning, and the great ftrictnefs of his life. He carried thefe doctrines farther than the Greek Church had done; so that he was reckoned to have fallen into great errors both by Ifid. Pelf. Chryfoftom and Ifidore, (as it is reprefented by Janfenius, though Lib. 1. Ep. that is denied by others, who think they meant another of the fame name.) He denied that we had fuffered any harm by the fall of Adam, or that there was any need of inward alfiftances; and he afferted an entire liberty in the will. St. Austin, though in his difputes with the Manichees he had faid many things on the fide of liberty, yet he hated Pelagius's doctrine, which he thought afferted a facrilegious liberty, and he fet himself to beat down his tenets which had been but feebly attacked by Jerom. Caffian, a difciple of St. Chryfoftom's, came to Marfeilles about this time, having left Conftantinople perhaps when his mafter was banished out of it. He taught a middle doctrine, aflerting an inward grace, but subject to the freedom of the will: and that all things were both decreed and done, according to the prefcience of God, in which all future contingents were forefeen: he also taught, that the first converfion of the foul to God, was merely an effect of its free choice; fo that all preventing grace was denied by him; which came to be the peculiar diftinétion of those who were afterwards called the Semi-Pelagians. Profper and Hilary gave an account of this fyftem to St. Auftin, upon which he writ against it, and his opinions were defended by Profper, Fulgentius, 4. ad Olymp. 514. |