CHAPTER XI. FREEWILL, PREDESTINATION, AND ELECTION.

No controversy had arisen amongst Christians in the time of Irenæus on the subject of predestination, but heathen Stoics believed in an irresistible fate, and the Gnostics taught a natural and essential difference between the soul of one man and that of another, by virtue of which the former was of course raised at death to an intimate union with the Supreme Essence, whilst the latter could never hope for such an elevation, although he might be raised to a higher state than that of earthly existence.

Both these notions Irenæus combatted. He taught that man is endued with freewill(368), having good and evil set before him, and having the power to choose or reject either one or the other, and to act accordingly(369); that God has always treated men as having the power to act for themselves(370), rewarding or punishing them(371), praising or blaming(372) them according to the nature of their choice; and that this proves that we have freewill(373): that in fact the circumstance that our faith is called our own, and is rewarded(374), proves that we are free agents(375). In conformity with this opinion, he teaches that men are redeemed, not by compulsion, but by persuasion(376); that each person has a portion of divine light given him, and will be recompensed according as he keeps or rejects it(377); and that as each man’s salvation thus depends upon his own exertion, and cannot be attained without it, so our reward will be the more valued for having been gained by exertion(378).

We can see, therefore, that Irenæus could not have believed that the salvation of the elect was accomplished by the mere will of God concerning the individuals, either in opposition to their own will or by constraining their wills; although he asserted very fully the necessity of divine grace to cause our freewill to take a right direction(379).

And yet he was a believer in divine _predestination_. He believed that some were predestined to have the gift of incorruptibility imparted to them, (which we have seen to mean the Divine Spirit, by which we become the adopted children of God,) and thus to have life in the sight of God, whereas they were originally in a state of death(380). But he no where implies that they could not lose this gift, but the contrary(381). So again he teaches that God intentionally delivers some men over to unbelief without a trial. But who are they? Those who, he foresees, will not believe(382). He was of opinion that there is a predestined _number_ of those who shall be saved eternally, and that when that number is completed, the end of the world will come(383): the very idea embodied in our burial service(384). But he no where hints that the _individuals_ were predestined, as well as the number, or that those who were predestined to have the gift of immortality, were all in the number of those who should be saved eternally: so that the more we examine, the more clear does it become that he would have been opposed to _Calvinistic_ predestination.

Who, then, are those who are predestined to the gift of immortality? The manner in which he speaks of _election_ will enable us to answer this question. In explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says,(385) that, after the first set of husbandmen had been cast out, the vineyard was “no longer fenced in, but opened to all the world, and the tower of _the election_ exalted every where, beautiful to look on; for,” said he, “_the Church_ is every where distinctly visible, and every where is there a winepress dug, and every where are those who receive the Spirit.” Here we find election commensurate with the visible Church (indeed he knows no other): and so he proceeds further on(386) to speak of “the Word of God, who _elected_ the patriarchs _and us_;” just as in the passage before cited(387) he had said, “_We_ who were not as yet were predestined to be;” that is, spiritually, through redemption. And so in another place he speaks of the Church as “the congregation of God; which God, that is the Son, has himself collected by himself(388);” and in another passage, “the wages of Christ are men collected out of various and differing nations into one company of faith(389).”

All these passages reflect light upon each other, and exhibit the all‐wise God as planning from eternity the last dispensation, by which He chooses, through the Divine Word, to gather out of the world men of all nations, and to restore to them the lost gift of immortality, by adopting them for his own children, and bestowing on them his Spirit, and thus uniting them in the one body of his Church; so that those who believe, and continue in obedience to Him, and hold fast his teaching, continue his children; whilst those who do not obey Him are cut off from Him, and cease to be his children. And as baptism is the sign and means of our union with God and the reception of the Holy Spirit(390), so baptism is the sign and pledge of this predestination and election.

There is another question as to this election, upon which Irenæus throws but little light; that is, whether God has elected into his Church upon foreseen faith or not. He expressly declares(391) that God leaves in darkness and unbelief those who, He foresees, will not believe; but what is the precise application of that declaration, whether to those to whom God vouchsafes no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Gospel, or to those who, living in the hearing of the Gospel, do not receive his grace, is by no means clear. And it would be unsafe, therefore, to argue that Irenæus believed that God predestines men to grace from foreseen faith. The two things may appear to us correlative; but we must remember that there had been no controversy on the subject, and therefore he cannot be supposed to have weighed his language as we should perhaps do at present.