Predestination

PREDESTINATION, to Predestinate. This Word is taken from the Latin, Predestinare, which sometimes barely signifies a Designation or Appointment of any particular Thing to a particular Use, or of any Person to some particular Office or Employment. But, in the Language of the Church, and of Divines, Predestination is taken for the Design that God has formed from all Eternity, of bringing by his Grace, to Faith and eternal Salvation, some certain Persons; whilst he leaves others to continue in their Infidelity, or in their Corruptions. Those that are so left are the Reprobate, and the others are the Predestinated.

Rom. viii. 30.Predestination is distinguished into two Kinds; one to Grace, and the other to Glory. All that are predestinated to Grace, are not therefore predestinated to Glory; because that several of those may forfeit that Grace, and may not persevere in doing good: Whereas, the others receive from God the Gift of Calling to the Faith, of Justification, and of Perseverance; and, finally, of Glory. ‘Tis of these last that St. Paul speaks; 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.

Aug. de Dono Perseverantiæ, c. 14. n. 35. Idem de Dono Perseverantiæ, c. 23. Idem de Dono Perseverantiæ, c. 19. n. 48.All Divines agree, and ‘tis an Article of our Faith, That Predestination to Grace is of meer Favour; otherwise, Grace would not be Grace; which is an Absurdity. But Opinions are divided concerning Predestination: Some will have it to be meerly gratuitous; and others believe that God has formed his Decree of Predestination upon a View of the future Merits of the Elect. St. Austin, the Fathers that have succeeded him, Thomas Aquinas, and the most celebrated Schools of the Latin Church, hold Predestination to be of meer Favour. Some Greek Fathers, and some Latin Divines, adhere to that Predestination that is made upon a Foreknowledge of the future Behaviour of the Elect. St. Austin thus defines Predestination; he says, It is a Foreknowledge and Preparation of efficacious Means; in Virtue of which, the Elect are most certainly saved: Hæc est prædestinatio sanctorum nihil aliud, præscientiæ, & præscientia scilicet, & præparatio beneficiorum, quibus certissimè liberantur quicumque liberantur. And this great Doctor was so fully persuaded of the Gratuitousness of Predestination, consider’d in its full Extent, that is to say, taken as an absolute Decree of God, who determines the Glory of his Elect, by certain effectual Means that he has prepared to bring them to it; that he makes no Scruple to give this Opinion, as the Belief of the Church; and to maintain, that no one can oppose it, without being guilty of an Error: Hoc scio, neminem contra istam prædestinationem, quam secundùm scripturas sanctas defendimus, nisi errando, disputare potuisse.

The ancient Hebrews were persuaded, as well as we, that God had a Foreknowledge of what each of us should be, do, and become, both as to Good and Evil. This is included in the very Notion of God, of his Providence, and infinite Knowledge. God Jer. i. 5.says to Jeremiah, Before I formed thee in the Belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the Womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations. But when we endeavour to form a just Idea of their System of Predestination and Reprobation, and how they reconreconciled Grace and Free-Will, the Matter is not very easy. These Things were not then so much enquired into as they have been since; and Men had not taken so much Pains to form Systems of Theology, for the Explaining of these Mysteries, which are still so profound and so obscure, after all our Discoveries.

Philo¹, Josephus², and the Rabbins³ are of Opinion, That in the Beginning God created all the Souls that exist, and all the Matter that composes the Universe: So that when a new Body is formed, it is not animated by a Soul newly created, but by one that was created at the Beginning of the World. Philo thinks that Angels, Demons, and the Souls of Men, are of the same Nature, and differ only in the Name: That as there are good and bad Genii, so there are good and bad Souls: That Souls, as well as Angels, have their Abode in the highest Region of the Air; from whence they descend to animate Bodies, and bring with them their good or bad Qualities: That they enjoy a perfect Liberty; and, according to the good or bad Use they make of it, they are punished or rewarded, to all Eternity.

Joseph. l. 18. Antiq. c. 2. & de Bello, l. 2. c. 12, &c.Josephus acknowledges, that the Pharisees stand up for Fate, yet without excluding the Free-will of Man, and the Sovereign Power of God over his Creatures. That Souls that have lived well, at their Departure out of the Body, return to the Place from whence they came, with a Power of returning afterwards to animate some other Body; whereas the Souls of the Wicked are condemned to everlasting Punishment. The Essenians think, That Souls are attracted, by I know not what Inclination, to inclose themselves in Bodies; that such as live an innocent Life therein, depart, after the Death of the Body, to certain delightful Places beyond the Ocean; and those of the Wicked, to dark Places, where they live in Torment.

Wisd. vii. 19, 20.The Author of the Book of Wisdom, whom several have thought to be Philo, makes Solomon thus speak; I was a witty Child, and had a good Spirit: yea, rather, being good, I came into a Body undefiled. Where we see the same Principles as we John ix. 2.have observ’d in Philo. The Apostles, in the Gospel, propos’d a Question to Jesus Christ, when they saw a Man that was born blind, Whether it was for the Punishment of his own Sins, or for those of his Parents, that this Man was born blind? They therefore had a Notion, that his Soul had an Existence before, and had offended God, before he animated the present Body.

Origen,⁴ who believed the Pre-existence of Souls, as well as the Hebrews, had also, probably, received from them his System of the Predestination and Reprobation of Men; according to which, he affirm’d, that God forms his Decree of Saving or Damning, of Rewarding or Punishing Men, upon the Knowledge he has of the good or bad Qualities with which their Souls are endued, before their Infusion into the Body; and of the good or bad Use they have made of their Liberty, before their Birth, and of the Use they will make of it when they shall live upon the Earth. He was persuaded, that before the Soul animates the Body, it is in full Liberty of doing Good or Evil; and that all the Good or Evil, the Prosperity or Adversity, that happens to it in this Life, are either Rewards or Punishments for what it has perform’d well or ill in a former State: That it was for this, that Jacob was preferr’d before Esau; that one is beloved, and the other hated; one appointed to Dominion, and the other to Subjection.

Thus, according to Origen,⁵ we are not predestinated by the Prescience of God, but from a Consideration of our previous Merits. Jacob deserved to be predestinated, for the Care he took of purifying his Soul; whereas Esau, having not used the same Diligence to make himself worthy of God’s Favours, deserved to become a Vessel of Dishonour: That St. Paul also furnished from himself the Cause of his Election, to Him who knows all Things before they happen, God foreseeing that he would labour more abundantly in the Vineyard of the Church. ‘Twas from this System of Origen, that Pelagius form’d his Sentiments concerning Predestination and Reprobation. Which gave Occasion to St. Jerom to say, That the Pelagian Heresy is only a Branch of the Errors of Origen, and that Origen was the Predecessor of Pelagius: Doctrina tua Originis ramuscula est.

Chrysost. in Epist. ad Rom. ix. p. 325.St. Chrysostom, who may be consider’d as the Oracle and the Mouth of the Greek Church, kept at a Distance from the Opinions of Origen, by maintaining, That God does not reject nor predestinate Men on Account of their past good or bad Actions, but only upon the Knowledge of their future Merits or Demerits: Whence is it, (says he) that Jacob is beloved, and Esau hated? ‘Tis because one is good, and the other is bad. And whence is it, that, before their Birth, God determined, that the Elder should be in Subjection to the Younger? ‘Tis because God has no need to stay for the Event of Things, as we must do,

to judge whether a Man shall be good or bad; he sees that even before he is born. ‘Twas by the Effect of his Prescience, that he chose Jacob and rejected Esau. He knew before their Birth what they would one Day prove. When he chose St. Matthew, there were several Persons who appear’d better than he; but by his infinite Penetration, he knew how to discover the Value of that Jewel, that then lay upon a Dunghill.

He adds, speaking of Pharaoh, that this hardened Prince became a Vessel of Wrath, only by his own Iniquity: That the Hebrews were Vessels of Mercy, for nothing but their Integrity and Simplicity. In another Chrysost. Homil. lxxx. in Matt. xxv. p. 837. 2.Place he says, that the Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for the Elect from the Beginning of the World, and before they were born, because God foreknew what Ps.cxxxix. they would afterwards be. And writing upon those Words of the Psalmist; Thou understandest my Thought afar off, he thus reasons: Some People are absurd enough to say, such an one is a good Man, because God has chosen him and loved him; and such another is wicked, because God hated him. But the Prophet here tells us, on the contrary, that God proves us by our Works. He knows whether we will be vertuous or no, even before our Birth. And by that he gives us Proofs of his Prescience, he confirms it by our Works, for fear it should be imagin’d, that his Prescience was the Cause of our Vertue.

The Greek Fathers that came after St. Chrysostome have express’d themselves much in the same manner, and the modern Greeks have follow’d the Sentiments of the Fathers before them. In the several Projects that have been form’d, for the Reunion of the Greek Church with the Latin, there were no Difficulties started about the Doctrine of Predestination and Reprobation. There was an Agreement, as to the Substance of this Article, though there was a Difference among the Greeks and Latins, as to their Way of expressing themselves. Both of them condemned Pelagius and Celestius, and maintain’d that Man was unable to do any good, without the Supernatural Assistance of God’s Grace: Whereas Pelagius pretended, that Man might make use of his Liberty without the Assistance of Grace, and that Grace itself was conferr’d upon him only in proportion to his Merits. The Reader may see our Dissertation upon Predestination and Reprobation, which we have prefix’d to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages