PREDESTINATION, the supposed decree of God by which he has from all eternity unchangeably appointed whatsoever comesto pass; and has more especially fore-ordained certain individuals of the human race to everlasting happiness, and passed by the rest, fore-ordaining them to everlasting misery. The former of these are called the elect, and the latter are called the reprobate.

This doctrine is the subject of one of the most perplexing controversies that has occurred amongst mankind. But it is not altogether peculiar to the Christian faith. The opinion, that whatever occurs in the world at large, or in the lot of private individuals, is the result of a previous and unalterable arrangement by that Supreme Power which presides over nature, has always been a favourite opinion amongst the vulgar, and has also been believed by many speculative men. Thus, in that beautiful scene in the sixth book of the Iliad, Hector, taking leave of his wife and child, speaks thus:

Andromache, my soul’s far better part, Why with untimely sorrows heaves thy heart? No hostile hand can antedate my doom, Till fate condemns me to the silent tomb.

Fix’d is the term to all the race of earth, And such the hard condition of our birth. No force can then resist, no flight can save; All sink alike, the fearful and the brave.

The ancient Stoics, Zeno and Chrysippus, whom the Jewish Essenes seem to have followed, asserted the existence of a Deity, who, acting wisely, but necessarily, contrived the general system of the universe; from which, by a series of causes, whatever is now done in it unavoidably results. This series, or concatenation of causes, they held to be necessary in every part; and thought God himself as so much the servant of necessity, and of his own decrees, that he could not have made the smallest object in the world otherwise than it now is, much less was he able to alter any thing.

According to the words of Seneca, Eadem necessitas et Dcos alligat. Irrevocabilis divina pariter atque humana cursus vehit. Ille ipse omnium conditor ac rector scripsit quidem fata sed sequitur. Semper paret, semel jussit. “The same chain of necessity constrains both gods and men. Its unalterable course regulates divine as well as human things. Even he who wrote the Fates, the Maker and Governor of all things, submits to them. He did but once command, but he always obeys.” The stoical fate, however, differs from the Christian predestination in several points. They regarded the divine nature and will as a necessary part of a necessary chain of causes; whereas the Christians consider the Deity as the lord and ruler of the Universe, omnipotent and free, appointing all things according to his pleasure. Being doubtful of the immortality of the soul, the Stoics could have no idea of the doctrine of election and reprobation; nor did they ever doubt their own freedom of will, or power of doing good as well as evil, as we shall presently see the Christian predestinarians have done.

Mahommed introduced into his Koran the doctrine of an absolute predestination.of the course of human affairs. He represented life and death, prosperity and adversity, with [7:18:515]every event that befalls a man in this world, as the result of a previous determination of the one God who rules over all; and he found this opinion the best engine for inspiring his followers with that contempt of danger, which, united to fanatical zeal, has extended the empire of their faith over the fairest portion of the habitable globe.

The controversy concerning predestination first made its appearance in the Christian church about the beginning of the fifth century. Pelagius a British, and Coelestius an Irish monk, both lived at Rome during that period, and possessed great celebrity on acconnt of their piety and learning. They taught that the opinion is false, which asserts, that human nature is necessarily corrupted by a depravity derived from our first parents. They contended, that men are born at present in a state as pure as that in which Adam was originally created; and that they are not less qualified than he was for fulfiling all righteousness, and for reaching the most sublime eminence of piety and virtue. They maintained that the external grace of God, which is given unto all, and attends the preaching of the gospel, is necessary to call forth the attention and the exertions of men; but that we do not want the assistance of any internal grace to purify the heart, and to give it the first impulse towards what is good. Having fled into Africa on account of the Goths, who at that time (A. D. 410,) invaded Italy, Coelestius remained at Carthage as a presbyter; but Pelagius went into the East, where he settled, and prospered under the patronage of John bishop of Jerusalem, to whom his sentiments were agreeable. On the contrary, the celebrated Augustin, bishop of Hippo, strenuously asserted the depravity of human nature since the fall of the first man; the necessity of a special interposition of divine grace to enable us to do any one good action; and consequently, that none could obtain salvation excepting those whom God has thought fit to elect, and upon whom he bestows this grace. The dispute was carried on with great zeal. Zozimus, bishop of Rome, decided at first in favour of Pelagius and Coelestius, whose followers were called Pelagians ; but he afterwards altered his opinion, and by the activity of Augustin, the council of Ephesus was called, at which the opinion of his antagonists Avas formally condemned.

In the course of the same century, these opinions assumed a variety of forms and modifications. One party, called Predestinarians, carried Augustin’s doctrine fully farther than he himself had ventured to do in express Avords; and asserted, that God had not only predestinated the Avicked to punishment, but that he had also decreed that they should commit those very sins on account of Avhich they are hereafter to be punished. Another party moderated the doctrine of Pelagius, and Avere called Semipelagians. Their peculiar opinion is expressed in a different manner by different Avriters; but all the accounts sufficiently agree. Thus, some represent them as maintaining that inAvard grace is not necessary to the first beginning of repentance, but only to our progress in virtue. Others say, that they acknoAvledged the power of grace, but said that faith depends upon ourselves, and good Avorks upon God; and it is agreed upon all hands, that these Semipelagians held that predestination is made upon the foresight of good Avorks. The assistance of St. Augustin, though then far advanced in life, was called in to combat these tenets, and he Avrote several treatises upon the subject. In all these he strenuously maintained, that the predestination of the elect Avas independent of any foresight of their good works, but Avas according to the good pleasure of God only; and that perseverance comes from God, and not from man. Thereafter the doctrine of St. Augustin, as he is often called, became general. He Avas the oracle of the schoolmen. They never ventured to dif for from him in sentiment; they only pretended to dispute about the true sense of his writings.

Almost the Avhole of the earliest refermers maintained these opinions of St. Augustin. They assumed, under Luther, a more regular and systematic form than they had ever formerly exhibited. But as the Lutherans afterwards abandoned them, they are now known by the name of Calvinis-tic Doctrines, from John Calvin of Geneva. This reformer asserted, that the everlasting condition of mankind in a future world Avas determined from all eternity by the unchangeable decree of the Deity, arising from his sole good pleasure or free will. Being a man of great ability, industry, and eloquence, Geneva, Avhere he taught, and which Avas a free state, soon became the resort of all the men of letters belonging to the reformed churches, and Avas a kind of seminary from which missionaries issued to propagate the Protestant doctrine throughout Europe. Their success Avas such, that, excepting a small part of Germany, the principles of all the reformed churches are professedly Calvinistic or Predestinarian.

The opponents of the doctrine of predestination amongst the Protestants usually receive the appellation of Arminians or Remonstrants. They derive the first of these ap-pelations from James Arminius, who, in 1602, Avas appointed^[1. Relatio Historica de Origine et Progressu Controversiarum de Proedestinatione Philippi à Limborch. ] professor of theology at Leyden. He Avas violently opposed by Gomer his colleague, and died in 1609. After his death, the controversy Avas conducted Avith great eagerness on both sides. The Calvinists, hoAvever, gradually prevailed. A synod Avas called at Dort, in 1618, to which the most celebrated divines of different countries Avere invited. There, in a great measure, by the authority and influence of Maurice prince of Orange, the Arminians Avere condemned as heretics; for by this time ambitious and poAverful men found themselves politically interested in this religious contest. The Arminians presented to this synod a remonstrance, containing a statement of their faith upon the subjects in dispute; and from this they derived the appellation of Remonstrants. This statement contained the five folloAving articles. 1. That God from all eternity predestinated those to everlasting salvation Avhom he foresaAv Avould believe in Christ unto the end of their lives, and predestinated obstinate unbelievers to everlasting punishment. 2. Jesus Christ died for the Avhole human race, and for every individual of it, but believers alone reap the benefit of his death. 3. No man can produce faith in his mind by his oavn free-will, but it is necessary that man, who is by nature Avicked and unfit for acting or thinking aright, should be regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, imparted by God for Christ’s sake. 4. This divine grace constitutes the source, the progress, and the fulfilment, of all that is good in man, but it is not irresistible in its operation. 5. Believers, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, are abundantly fitted for every good Avork; but Avhether it is possible for those av!io have once been truly such to fall aAvay, and to perish finally, is not clear, and must be better inquired into by searching the Scriptures.

In opposition to these, a counter remonstrance was presented, containing the opinions of the Calvinists, Avhich was approved of by the synod. The substance of it was after-Avards adopted, and in nearly the same expressions, into the Confession of Faith compiled by the assembly of divines Avhich met at Westminster, in 1643, and which every clergyman and probationer for the ministry in Scotland is at present required to subscribe previous to his admission. To give as clear and fair an idea as possible to the Calvinistic doctrine upon this head, we transcribe the folloAving passage from that Confession: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain Avhatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God [7:18:516]the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingencies of second causes taken away, but rather established. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or that which would come to pass upon such conditions. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others are fore-ordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained, all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept, by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.”

There are two kinds of Calvinists or Predestinarians, viz. the Supralapsarians, who maintained that God did originally and expressly decree the fall of Adam, as a foundation for the display of his justice and mercy; whilst they who maintain that God oτΛy permitted the fall of Adam, are called Sublapsarians, their system of decrees concerning election and reprobation, being as it were, subsequent to that event. But, as Dr. Priestley justly remarks, if we admit the divine prescience, there is not, in fact, any difference between the two schemes; and accordingly that distinction is now seldom mentioned.

Nor was the church of Rome less agitated by the contest about predestination than were the first Protestants. The council of Trent was much perplexed how to settle the matter without giving offence to the Dominicans, who were much attached to the doctrine of St. Augustin, and possessed great influence in the council. After much dispute, the main object came to be, how to contrive such a decree as might give offence to nobody, although it should decide nothing. Upon the whole, however, they seem to have favoured the Semipelagian scheme. Amongst other things, it was determined, that good works are of themselves meritorious to eternal life; but it is added, by way of softening, that it is through the goodness of God, that he makes his own gifts to be merits in us. Catarin revived at that council an opinion of some of the schoolmen, that God chose a small number of persons, such as the blessed virgin, the apostles, and others, whom he was determined to save without any foresight of their good works; and that he also wills that all the rest should be saved, providing for them all necessary means, but they are at liberty to use them or not. This is called the Baxterian scheme in England, from one of its promoters there. But at all events, the council of Trent seems to have been extremely anxious that any opinions entertained amongst them concerning predestination might have as little influence as possible upon practical morality. “Let no man,” say they, “whilst he remains in this mortal state presume that he is among the number of the elect, and that therefore he cannot sin, or sin without repentance; for it cannot be known who are elected without a special revelation from God.” (Sect. 6. c. 13.)

The Jesuits at first followed the opinion of St. Augustin; but they afterwards forsook it. Molina, one of their order, was the author of what is called the middle scheme, or the doctrine of agrace sufficient for all men, but subject to the freedom of the human will. Jansenius, a doctor of Louvain, opposed the Jesuits with great vigour, and supported the doctrine of St. Augustin. He wrote in a very artful manner, declaring that he did not presume to state his own sentiments upon the subject. He pretended only to explain and publish the sentiments of that great father of the church St. Augustin. But the Jesuits, in consequence of that inviolable submission to the authority of the pope, which they always maintained, had sufficient interest at Rome to procure the opinion of Jansenius to be condemned there; with this addition subjoined, however, that nothing was thereby intended to be done in prejudice of the doctrine of St. Augustin. This produced an absurd dispute about the pope’s infallibility in matters of fact. The Jansenists affirmed, that the pope had made a mistake in condemning the opinions of Jansenius as different from those of St. Augustin; whereas in truth they are the same, and the one cannot be condemned without the other. But the Jesuits affirmed, that the pope is no less infallible in points of fact than he is in questions of faith; and he having decided, that the opinions of Jansenius are different from those of St. Augustin, every good Catholic is bound to believe accordingly that they are different. Some of the very ablest supporters of predestination have appeared amongst the Jansenists, and particularly amongst the gentlemen of Port-Royal.

With regard to Great Britain, the earliest English reformers were in general Sublapsarians, although some of them were Supralapsarians. But the rigid Predestinarians have been gradually declining in number in that church, although they still subscribe the thirty-nine articles of their faith, which are unquestionably Calvinistic. The celebrated Scotch reformer John Knox having been educated at Geneva, established in this country the doctrine of predestination in its strictest form; and it has probably been adhered to with more strictness in Scotland than in any other country of Europe.