different view of the subject than had been previously taken, had been
stated by Cyprian, yet a thorough investigation of it, and the
sentiments which afterward were widely received in the Christian church,
took their rise from the discussions to which the Pelagian controversy
gave occasion. Previous to the part which Augustine took in that
controversy, he seems to have been very much of the same sentiments with
Origen and the other early fathers. But, either from what he considered
as a more deliberate and complete examination of Scripture, or from
perceiving the necessity imposed on him, in consequence of some of the
positions which he had laid down in his writings against Pelagius, he
soon changed his opinion, and advanced a notion more in harmony with
these positions. Having to show the absolute necessity of divine grace,
he inculcated that, in consequence of original sin, man was infallibly
determined to evil, and was therefore in a state of condemnation, and he
thus took away the foundation upon which the prevailing tenets rested;
because it was impossible that men could be predestined to life, or the
reverse, from prescience of their actions, when, without the special
grace of God, they were absolutely incapacitated for obedience to the
divine law. To get rid of this difficulty, Augustine, in some degree,
transferred the search for the origin of sin from the state of man to
the purposes of God, asserting that from all eternity the Almighty had
determined to choose from the mass of mankind, lost in guilt and
corruption, a certain number to be transformed to holiness, and to be
admitted after this life to eternal happiness; that he did this to
promote his own glory; and that, by the operation of his Spirit, granted
of his own free and undeserved mercy, he produced in the elect or chosen
the fruits of righteousness, and qualified them for the enjoyment of
heaven. The whole of the remainder of the human race were, according to
this system, left in their condition by nature, or in other words, were
given up to endless misery. There immediately arose out of this view of
the subject, the formidable and heart-rending objection, that God was
really the author of sin; that, having so created mankind that of
themselves they could not be holy, there was on the part of those
delivered no virtue, as there was on the other part no blame; the case
being quite different from what it would have been had God interposed
with respect to creatures who had not received from himself their
physical and moral constitution. Accordingly, it has been asserted that
a sect did arise, which, carrying out, as the members of it affirmed,
the principles of Augustine, maintained that God not only predestinated
the wicked to eternal punishment, but also to the guilt and
transgression for which they were punished; that the human race was thus
wholly passive, the good and bad actions of men, or what were commonly
termed such, being determined from all eternity by a divine decree, or
fixed by hopeless, irresistible necessity. These opinions it is said
that the venerable and enlightened bishop of Hippo zealously opposed,
labouring to show that they were not fairly deduced from what he had
taught, making a distinction probably between his account of free will
and the necessity here confounded with it, and perhaps reluctant to push
his tenets so far as apparently they might be carried. The fact is, that
although the doctrine of absolute predestination is occasionally clearly
taught by Augustine, and obviously follows from his other principles,
yet he does not always write consistently with regard to it; or, at
least, there is sometimes so much vagueness in his assertions and
illustrations, that his authority has been claimed in support of their
peculiar tenets both by the Jansenists and the Jesuits, opposite to each
other as the sentiments of these two orders are upon the subject of
which we are treating. Still it is beyond a question that this
celebrated theologian did fix the attention of the church upon that
subject much more closely than before his age had been the case, and
gave rise to those discussions in relation to it which have so often
agitated Christians, and tended much more to destroy the mild and
tolerant spirit of the Gospel, than to throw light upon its momentous
truths. The subject of predestination, however, was long regarded as one
which it was not esteemed requisite absolutely to define, and which
might be very much left open to speculation; for although in different
countries decrees were passed, guarding against what were viewed as
errors resulting from it, it is plain, from what took place upon the
revival of the controversy in an after age, that there had not been
formed any standard to which ecclesiastical authority required that all
who were esteemed orthodox should strictly conform. See AUGUSTINE.
In the ninth century, Godeschalchus, a man of illustrious birth, who
had, contrary to his inclinations, been devoted by his parents to a
monastic life, and who had, with unwearied diligence, studied the
science of theology, inflamed by an unhappy desire to unravel all the
difficulties with which that science abounds, occupied his mind with the
consideration of the question of predestination, and finally adopted,
with regard to it, the doctrine of Augustine. Not satisfied with having
convinced himself, he conceived it to be his duty to labour for the
conviction of others; and he accordingly openly and zealously inculcated
that the elect were predestinated to life, and the rest of mankind to
everlasting misery. Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, who had for some
reason before this been inspired with enmity to Godeschalchus, having
been informed of the tenets which he was publishing, and, as has too
often been the case, veiling private antipathy under the cloak of
anxiety for the purity of divine truth, opposed him with the utmost
vehemence; and, having assembled a council in his own metropolitan city,
procured the condemnation of the views which he reprobated. The matter
was afterward taken up by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who was the
zealous friend of Rabanus; and he also having procured the meeting of a
council, confirmed the sentence that had been already passed. Not
satisfied with this, he degraded Godeschalchus from the priesthood; and,
with an inhumanity infinitely more detestable than heresy, he put the
unfortunate monk to the torture. The fortitude of Godeschalchus was for
a moment overpowered, and he consented to commit to the flames a
justification of his opinions which he had presented to his execrable
tormentors. It was not to be supposed that by atrocious violence like
this sincere conviction could be produced in the person against whom it
was directed, or that others would be disposed universally to submit to
it. The controversy, accordingly, soon was renewed; writers on both
sides of the question contended with the utmost warmth, and eagerly
displayed the extent of their erudition. New councils were summoned, by
which the decrees of former councils were reversed, and the tenets of
Godeschalchus were confirmed; and the whole agitation terminated by
leaving the subject in the same undefined state on the part of the
church in which it had been before it was thus intemperately and cruelly
discussed.
To the schoolmen, who delighted much more in losing themselves amidst
inextricable difficulties and endless distinctions, than in opening the
sources of knowledge and removing the difficulties with which these were
surrounded, this subject, from its intricate or inexplicable nature, was
admirably adapted; and they did not fail to exercise upon it their
diligence and their ingenuity. Thomas Aquinas, who flourished during the
thirteenth century, was a man who in more enlightened times would have
really merited the high reputation which he enjoyed, and which procured
for him from his contemporaries the appellation of the Angelic Doctor.
He was capable of vast mental exertion, and, amidst all his avocations,
produced works so voluminous that in modern days even students would
shrink from the perusal of them as an overwhelming task. He wrote
largely upon the nature of grace, and predestination, so intimately
connected with it. His opinions upon these subjects were nearly the same
with those of Augustine; and so much, indeed, was he conceived to
resemble in genius and understanding that distinguished prelate, that it
was asserted the soul of Augustine had been sent into the body of
Aquinas. He taught that God had, from all eternity, and without any
regard to their works, predestinated a certain number to life and
happiness; but he found great delight in endeavouring to reconcile this
position with the freedom of the human will. His celebrated antagonist,
John Duns Scotus, an inhabitant of Britain, surnamed, from the acuteness
and bent of his mind, the Subtile Doctor, also directed his attention,
in the subsequent century, to the same thorny speculations, taking a
different view of them from Aquinas; and we find in the works of these
two brilliant lights of the schoolmen all that the most learned in the
dark ages thought upon them.
It is unnecessary to trace the various shades of opinion which existed
in the church as to predestination from this era till the Reformation:
it is enough to remark, that, after all which had been written upon it,
it does not appear that any peculiar sentiments with respect to it were,
by the reformers, judged essential to orthodoxy. It was more wisely
considered that, upon a point involved in impenetrable difficulties, and
raised far above human comprehension, men might be allowed to differ,
while their attachment to the best interests of pure religion could not
be called in question. See CALVINISM and LUTHERANS.
The seventeenth article of the church of England is often adduced by
Calvinists as favourable to their peculiar views of absolute
predestination; but such a representation of it is rendered plausible
only by adding to its various clauses qualifying expressions to suit
that purpose. Under the articles _Church of England_, _Confessions_, and
_Calvinism_, have been exhibited the just and liberal views of Cranmer
and the principal English reformers on this subject,--the sources from
which they drew the _articles of religion_ and the public formularies of
devotion,--and some of the futile attempts of the high predestinarians
in the church to inoculate the public creed with their dogmas.
Cartwright and his followers, in their second Admonition to the
Parliament” in 1572, complained that the articles speak dangerously of
falling from grace;” and in 1587 they preferred a similar complaint. The
labours of the Westminster Assembly at a subsequent period, and their
abortive result, in relation to this subject, are well known. Long
before Arminius had turned his thoughts to the consideration of general
redemption, a great number of the English clergy had publicly taught and
defended the same doctrine. It was about 1571 when Dr. Peter Baroe, a
zealous Anti-Calvinian,” as one of our church historians observes, was
made Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge; and
“he went on teaching in his lectures, preaching in his sermons,
determining in the schools, and printing in several books, divers points
contrary to Calvinism. And this he did for several years, without any
manner of disturbance or interruption. The heads of the university, in a
letter to the Lord Burleigh, dated March 8, 1595, say, he had done it
for fourteen or fifteen years preceding and they might have said twenty;
for he printed some of his lectures in 1574, and the prosecution he was
at last under, which will be considered hereafter, was not till 1595. In
1584, Mr. Harsnet, afterward archbishop of York, preached against
absolute reprobation at St. Paul’s Cross, the greatest audience then in
the kingdom; as did the judicious Mr. Hooker at the Temple in the year
following. In the year 1594, Mr. Barret preached at St. Mary’s in
Cambridge against Calvinism, with very smart reflections upon Calvin
himself, Beza, Zanchy, and several others of the most noted writers in
that scheme. In the same year, Dr. Baroe preached at the same place to
the same purpose. By this time Calvinism had gained considerable ground,
being much promoted by the learned Whitaker and Mr. Perkins; and several
of the heads of the university being in that scheme, they complained of
the two sermons above mentioned to the Lord Burleigh their chancellor.
Their heads endeavoured to bring Barret to a retraction, to which
whether he ever submitted according to the form they drew up, may
reasonably be doubted. At length the matter was laid before Archbishop
Whitgift, who was offended at their proceedings, and writes to the Lord
Burleigh, that some of the points which the heads had enjoined Barret to
retract were such as the most learned Protestants, then living, varied
in judgment upon; and that _the most ancient and best divines in the
land were in the chiefest points in opinion against the heads and their
resolutions_. Another letter he sent to the heads themselves, telling
them that they had enjoined Barret to affirm that which was contrary to
the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines in
the church of England, and in other churches likewise men of best
account; and that which for his own part he thought to be false and
contrary to the Scriptures; for the Scriptures are plain, that God by
his absolute will did not hate and reject any man. There might be
impiety in believing the one, there could be none in believing the
other; neither was it contrary to any article of religion established by
authority in this church of England, but rather agreeable thereto. This
testimony of the archbishop is very remarkable; and though he afterward
countenanced the Lambeth articles, that is of little or no weight in the
case. The question is not about any man’s private opinion, but about the
doctrine of the church; and supposing the archbishop to be a Calvinist,
as he seems to have been at least in some points, this only adds the
greater weight to his testimony, that our church has no where declared
in favour of that scheme. The archbishop descended to the particulars
charged against Barret, asking the heads what article of the church was
contradicted by this or that notion of his; and Whitaker in his reply
does not appeal to one of the articles, as against Barret, but forms his
plea upon the doctrines which then generally obtained in pulpits. His
words are, ‘We are fully persuaded that Mr. Barret hath taught untruth,
if not against the articles, yet against the religion, of our church,
publicly received, and always held in her majesty’s reign, and
maintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures.’ And even this
pretence of his, weak as it would have been though true, is utterly
false, directly contrary, not only to what has been already shown to be
the facts of the case, but also to what the archbishop affirmed, and
that too, as must be supposed, upon his own knowledge. As to Dr. Baroe,
he met with many friends, who espoused his cause. Mr. Strype
particularly mentions four, Mr. Overal, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Harsnet, Dr.
Andrews; all of them great and learned men, men of renown, and famous in
their generation. How many more there were, nobody can tell. The heads
in their letter to the Lord Burleigh do not pretend that the preaching
against Calvinism gave a general offence, but that it offended many;
which implies that there were many others on the opposite side; and they
expressly say there were divers in the Anti-Calvinian scheme, whom they
represent as maintaining it with great boldness. But what put a stop to
this prosecution against Baroe was, a reprimand from their chancellor,
the Lord Burleigh, who wrote to the heads, that as good and as ancient
were of another judgment, and that they might punish him, but it would
be for well doing.”
But Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, could not
endure the farther prevalence of the doctrines of general redemption in
that university; he therefore, in 1595, drew up nine affirmations,
elucidatory of his views of predestination, and obtained for them the
sanction of several Calvinian heads of houses, with whom he repaired to
Archbishop Whitgift. Having heard their _ex parte_ statement, his grace
summoned Bishops Flecher and Vaughan, and Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, to
meet Dr. Whitaker and the Cambridge deputation at his palace in Lambeth,
on the tenth of November, 1595; where, after much polishing and
altering, they produced Whitaker’s affirmation in the following form,
called the Lambeth Articles,” from the place in which their secret
sittings had been held:--“1. God from eternity hath predestinated
certain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated. 2. The moving or
efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of
faith or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in
the person predestinated; but it is only the good will and pleasure of
God. 3. A certain number of the predestinate is predetermined, which can
neither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily damned for their sins. 5. A true,
living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not
extinguished, doth not fall off, or vanish away, in the elect, either
totally or finally. 6. A man who is a true believer, that is, one who is
endued with a justifying faith, is assured with a plerophory, or firm
persuasion, of faith concerning the remission of his sins, and his
eternal salvation through Christ. 7. Saving grace is neither given,
communicated, nor granted to all men, by which they can be saved if they
will. 8. No one is able to come unto Christ unless it shall be given
unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him; and all men are not
drawn by the Father, that they may come unto the Son. 9. It is not
placed in the choice, will, or capacity of every one to be saved.” Dr.
Whitaker died a few days after his return from Lambeth, with the nine
articles to which he had procured the patronage of the primate. After
his demise, two competitors appeared for the vacant King’s
Professorship, Dr. Wotton, of King’s College, a professed Calvinian, and
Dr. Overal of Trinity College, almost as far,” says Heylin, from the
Calvinian doctrine in the main platform of predestination as Baroe,
Harsnet, or Barret are conceived to be. But when it came to the vote of
the university, the place was carried for Overal by the major part;
which plainly shows, that though the doctrines of Calvin were so hotly
stickled here by most of the heads, yet the greater part of the learned
body entertained them not.” “The Lambeth articles,” it is well observed,
are no part of the doctrine of the church of England, having never had
any the least sanction either from the parliament or the convocation.
They were drawn up by Professor Whitaker; and though they were afterward
approved by Archbishop Whitgift, and six or eight of the inferior
clergy, in a meeting they had at Lambeth, yet this meeting was only in a
private manner, and without any authority from the queen; who was so far
from approving of their proceedings, that she not only ordered the
articles to be suppressed, but was resolutely bent for some time to
bring the archbishop and his associates under a _premunire_, for
presuming to make them without any warrant or legal authority.” Such, in
brief, was the origin and such the fate of the Lambeth articles, without
the countenance of which the defenders of Calvinism in the church of
England could find no semblance of support for their manifold
affirmations on predestination and its kindred topics. These articles
afford another instructive instance of the extreme ignorance of the real
sentiments of their opponents, which often betrays itself in the conduct
of many eminent men, when they rashly begin to fence off the reputed
heterodoxy of their brethren from the sacred precincts of their own
orthodoxy. Two of the ablest and most consistent Arminians of the old
English school, Baroe and Plaifere, have lucidly shown how every one of
these nine assertions may, without difficulty, be interpreted in
accordance with their individual belief. Baroe’s clever dissertation on
this subject will be found in Strype’s Life of Whitgift;” and that of
Plaifere, in his own unanswerable _Apello Evangelium_.”
PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST is his existence before he was born of the
Virgin Mary. That he really did exist, is plain from John iii, 13; vi,
50, &c; viii, 58; xvii, 5, 24; 1 John i, 2; but there are various
opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the
orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational
soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His
body was formed in the virgin’s womb; but his human soul, they suppose,
was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought
into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy
union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his
incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the
latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold
his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who
believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation: they differ
from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also
from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ’s human soul
began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that
likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii, 17. The
writers in favour of the preëxistence of Christ’s human soul recommend
their opinion by these arguments: 1. Christ is represented as his
Father’s messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by
his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem
to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ
to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man
really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a
peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal
union. 2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several
passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he
had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time
nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could
not properly have divested itself of any glory, John xvii, 4, 5; 2 Cor.
viii, 9. It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely
self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and
glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he
were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It
seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of
Jesus Christ should preëxist, that it might have an opportunity to give
its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of
making atonement for our sins. On the other side, it is affirmed that
the doctrine of the preëxistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and
subverts that of his divine personality. 1. A pure intelligent spirit,
the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures,
created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the
second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the
least difference except in name. 2. This preëxistent intelligence,
supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other
intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking
this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to
consist of three natures. 3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like
the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make
him a real man? 4. The passages quoted in proof of the preëxistence of
the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which
others allege in proof of the preëxistence of all human souls. 5. This
opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this
sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the
last as passive as the first is active. 6. This notion is contrary to
the Scripture. St. Paul says, In all things it behoved him to be made
like unto his brethren,” Heb. ii, 17: he partook of all our infirmities,
except sin. St. Luke says, He increased in stature and wisdom,” Luke ii,
52. Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties
which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones.
This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of
resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God.