Article XVII

Since GAFCON, conversation in the blogosphere has focused a bit on the 39 Articles and, in particular, Article XVII which deals with predestination and election. It is important to be clear - these terms must not be read anachronistically - presuming that they are in any way related to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.

Edward Harold Browne wrote in his 1865 exposition on the 39 Articles that the tendency to see in this article a 'Calvinist' intention is gladly supposed by Calvinists and evangelical Anglicans. But, this is most likely erroneous and, indeed, anachronistic. Browne was writing in the middle nineteenth century when a small number of vocal and schism-leaning evangelical Anglicans were doing exactly what they are now attempting to do.

Here is Browne's exposition of Article XVII on Predestination and Election:

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 sup-
posing 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 Predestinatione 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 XVTIth 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.

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.

In the Homily of falling from God all Christains 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.