Part 18 (1/2)
From the very beginning of the Reformation the Romanists had slandered Luther also by maintaining that he condemned good works and simply denied their necessity. A similar charge was made by the Majorists against their opponents generally. And Melanchthon's writings, too, frequently create the same impression. But it was an inference of their own. They argued: If good works are not necessary to salvation, they cannot be necessary at all. Wigand wrote: ”It is a most malicious and insidious trait in the new teachers [the Majorists] that they, in order to gloss over their case, cry out with the Papists that the controversy is whether good works are necessary. But this is not in dispute, for no Christian ever denied it. Good works are necessary; that is certainly true. But the conflict arises from the appendix attached to it, and the patch pasted to it, _viz._, 'to salvation.' And here all G.o.d-fearing men say that it is a detrimental, offensive, d.a.m.nable, papistic appendix.” (Planck 4, 498. 544.)
It is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more extensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents of the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement, ”Good works are necessary.” Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily implying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion, they rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word ”must” is here not in place, they protested. Agricola, as well as the later Antinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions ”_necessarium,_ necessary” and ”duty, _debitum,_” when employed in connection with good works. January 13, 1555, Melanchthon wrote: ”Some object to the words, 'Good works are _necessary,_' or, 'One _must_ do good works.' They object to the two words _necessitas_ and _debitum._ And the Court-preacher [Agricola] at that time juggled with the word _must: 'das Muss ist versalzen._' He understood _necessarium_ and _debitum_ as meaning, coerced by fear of punishment, _extortum coactione_ (extorted by coercion), and spoke high-sounding words, such as, how good works came without the Law. Yet the first meaning of _necessarium_ and _debitum_ is not _extortum coactione,_ but the eternal and immutable order of divine wisdom; and the Lord Christ and Paul themselves employ these words _necessarium_ and _debitum._” In December, 1557, he wrote: ”They [the Antinomians] object to the proposition: 'New obedience is necessary;' again: 'New obedience is a debt (_debitum_).' And now Amsdorf writes: 'Good works are detrimental to salvation,'and it was Eisleben's [Agricola's] slogan: 'Das Muss ist versalzen.' In Nordhausen some one has publicly announced a disputation which contains the proposition: '_Summa ars Chriatianorum est nescire legem._--The highest art of a Christian is not to know the Law.'” March 4, 1558: ”Some, for instance, Amsdorf and Gallus, object to the word _debitum._” (_C. R._ 8, 411. 194. 842; 9, 405. 474.)
Andrew Musculus, professor in Frankfurt on the Oder, is reported to have said in a sermon, 1558: ”They are all the devil's own who teach: 'New obedience is necessary (_nova obedientia est necessaria_)'; the word 'must (necessary)' does not belong here. 'Good works are necessary to salvation,' and, 'Good works are necessary, but not to salvation'--these are both of a cloth--_das sind zwei Hosen aus EINEM Tuch._” (Meusel, _Handlexikon_ 4, 710; Gieseler 3, 2, 216.)
Over against this extreme position, Melanchthon, Flacius, Wigand, Moerlin, and others held that it was entirely correct to say that good works are necessary. In the _Opinion_ of November 13, 1559, referred to above, Melanchthon, after stating that he does not employ the phrase, ”Good works are necessary to salvation,” continues as follows: ”But I do affirm that these propositions are true, and that one may properly and without sophistry say, 'The new obedience or good works are necessary,'
because obedience is due to G.o.d and because it is necessary that, after the Holy Spirit has been received, regeneration or conversion be followed by motions corresponding to the Holy Spirit.... And the words 'duty' and 'necessity' signify the order of G.o.d's wisdom and justice; they do not signify an obedience which is compelled or extorted by fear.” (_C. R._ 9, 969.) The Frankfurt _Rezess_ of 1558 [Rezess, Rueckzug, Vergleich = Agreement], written by Melanchthon and signed by the Lutheran princes, declared: ”These propositions, '_Nova obedientia est necessaria, nova obedientia est debitum,_ New obedience is necessary, is a debt,' shall not be rejected.” The _Rezess_ explained: ”It is certainly a divine, immovable truth that new obedience is necessary in those who are justified; and these words are to be retained in their true meaning. 'Necessary' signifies divine order. New obedience is necessary and is a debt for the very reason that it is an immutable divine order that the rational creature obeys G.o.d.” (_C. R._ 9, 496.
498.)
In a similar way this matter was explained by Flacius and other theologians. They all maintained that it is correct to say, Good works are necessary. Even Amsdorf wrote 1552 in his _Brief Instruction_ against Major: ”For we all say and confess that a Christian after his renewal and new birth _should_ and _must_ (_soll und muss_) love and fear G.o.d and do all manner of good works, but not in order to be saved thereby, for he is saved already by faith.” (Schlb. 7, 210.) This view, which was also plainly taught in the _Augsburg Confession,_ prevailed and received the sanction of our Church in Article IV of the _Formula of Concord._ When a Christian spontaneously and by the free impulse of his own faith does (and would do, even if there were no law at all) what, according to the holy will of G.o.d, revealed in the Ten Commandments, he is obliged and in duty bound to do--such works, and such only, are, according to the _Formula of Concord,_ truly good works, works pleasing to G.o.d. It was the doctrine of Luther, who had written, _e.g._, in his _Church Postil_ of 1521: ”No, dear man, you [cannot earn heaven by your good works, but you] must have heaven and already be saved before you do good works. Works do not merit heaven, but, on the contrary, heaven, imparted by pure grace, does good works spontaneouslv, seeking no merit, but only the welfare of the neighbor and the glory of G.o.d. _Nein, lieber Mensch, du musst den Himmel haben und schon selig sein, ehe du gute Werke tust. Die Werke verdienen nicht den Himmel, sondern wiederum [umgekehrt], der Himmel, aus lauter Gnaden gegeben, tut die guten Werke dahin, ohne Gesuch des Verdienstes, nur dem Naechsten zu Nutz und Gott zu Ehren._” (E. 7, 174.) Again, in _De Servio Arbitrio_ of 1525: ”The children of G.o.d do good entirely voluntarily, seeking no reward, but only the glory and will of G.o.d, ready to do the good even if, a.s.suming the impossible, there were neither heaven nor h.e.l.l. _Filii autem Dei gratuita voluntate faciunt bonum, nullum praemium quaerentes, sed solam gloriam et voluntatem Dei, parati bonum facere, si per impossibile neque regnum neque infernus esset._” (E. v. a. 7, 234.)
XIV. The Synergistic Controversy.
151. Relation of Majorism and Synergism.
The theological connection between Majorism and synergism is much closer than is generally realized. Both maintain that, in part, or in a certain respect, salvation depends not on grace alone, but also on man and his efforts. The Majorists declared good works to be necessary to salvation, or at least to the preservation of faith and of salvation. Thus salvation would, in a way, depend on the right conduct of a Christian after his conversion. The Synergists a.s.serted: Man, too, must do his bit and cooperate with the Holy Spirit if he desires to be saved. Conversion and salvation, therefore, would depend, at least in part, on man's conduct toward converting grace, and he would be justified and saved, not by grace alone, but by a faith which to a certain extent is a work of his own. The burden of both, Majorism and synergism, was the denial of the _sola gratia._ Both coordinated man and G.o.d as the causes of our salvation. Indeed, consistently carried out, both destroyed the central Christian truth of justification by grace alone and, with it, the a.s.surance of a gracious G.o.d and of eternal salvation--the supreme religious concern of Luther and the entire Lutheran theology.
Majorists and Synergists employed also the same line of argument. Both derived their doctrine, not from any clear statements of the Bible, but by a process of anti-Scriptural and fallacious reasoning. The Majorists inferred: Since evil works and sins against conscience destroy faith and justification, good works are required for their preservation. The Synergists argued: Since all who are not converted or finally saved must blame, not G.o.d, but themselves for rejecting grace, those, too, who are converted must be credited with at least a small share in the work of their salvation, that is to say, with a better conduct toward grace than the conduct of those who are lost.
However, while Majorism as well as synergism, as stated, represented essentially the same error and argued against the doctrine of grace in the same unscriptural manner, the more subtle, veiled, and hence the more dangerous of the two, no doubt, was synergism, which reduced man's cooperation to a seemingly harmless minimum and, especially in the beginning, endeavored to clothe itself in ambiguous phrases and apparently pious and plausible formulas. Perhaps this accounts also for the fact that, though Melanchthon and the Majorists felt constrained to abandon as described in the preceding chapter, the coa.r.s.er and more offensive Majoristic propositions, they had at the same time no compunctions about retaining and defending essentially the same error in their doctrine of conversion; and that, on the other hand, their opponents, who by that time fully realized also the viciousness of synergism, were not satisfied with Major's concessions in the controversy on good works, because he and his colleagues in Wittenberg were known to identify themselves with the Synergists. For the same reason the dangerous error lurking in the synergistic phrases does not seem from the first to have been recognized by the Lutherans in the same degree as was the error contained in the Majoristic propositions, which indeed had even during Luther's life to some extent become a subject of dispute. Yet it seems hardly possible that for years they should not have detected the synergistic deviations in Wittenberg from Luther's doctrine of free will. Perhaps the fact that at the time when Melanchthon came out boldly with his synergism, 1548, the Lutherans were engrossed with the Adiaphoristic and Majoristic controversies may help to explain, at least to some extent, why the synergistic error caused small concern, and was given but little consideration in the beginning.
As a matter of fact, although a considerable amount of synergistic material had been published by 1548, the controversy did not begin till 1556, while the error that good works are necessary to salvation was publicly opposed soon after its reappearance in the Leipzig Interim. At the Weimar Disputation, 1560, Strigel referred to this silence, saying: ”I am astonished that I am pressed so much in this matter [concerning synergism], since three years ago at Worms no mention whatever [?] was made of this controversy, while many severe commands were given regarding others.” (Richard, _Conf. Prin.,_ 349.) The matter was mentioned at Worms, but Melanchthon is reported to have satisfied Brenz and others by declaring that in the pa.s.sages of his _Loci_ suspected of synergism he meant ”the regenerated will.”
152. Luther's Monergism.
According to Lutheran theology, the true opposite of synergism is not Calvinism with its double election, irresistible grace, denial of universal redemption, etc., but the monergism of grace, embracing particularly the tenets that in consequence of Adam's fall man is spiritually dead and utterly unable to contribute in any degree or manner toward his own justification and conversion; moreover, that, being an enemy of G.o.d, man, of his own natural powers, is active only in resisting the saving efforts of G.o.d, as well as able and p.r.o.ne only to do so; that G.o.d alone and in every respect is the Author of man's conversion, perseverance, and final salvation; and that, since the grace of G.o.d is universal and earnestly proffered, man alone is responsible for, and the cause of, his own d.a.m.nation.
_”Sola fides iustificat,_ Faith alone justifies”--that was the great slogan of the Reformation sounded forth by Luther and his followers with ever increasing boldness, force and volume. And the distinct meaning of this proposition, which Luther called ”_hoc meum dogma,_ this my dogma,”
was just this, that we are saved not by any effort or work of our own, but in every respect by G.o.d's grace alone. The restoration of this wonderful truth, taught by St. Paul, made Luther the Reformer of the Church. This truth alone, as Luther had experienced, is able to impart solid comfort to a terror-stricken conscience, engender divine a.s.surance of G.o.d's pardon and acceptance, and thus translate a poor miserable sinner from the terrors of h.e.l.l into paradise.
In the _Seven Penitential Psalms,_ written 1517, Luther says: ”If G.o.d's mercy is to be praised, then all [human] merits and worthiness must come to naught.” (Weimar 1, 161.) ”Not such are blessed as have no sins or extricate themselves by their own labors, but only those whose sins are graciously forgiven by G.o.d.” (167.) ”It is characteristic of G.o.d (_es ist Gottes Natur_) to make something out of nothing. Hence G.o.d cannot make anything out of him who is not as yet nothing.... Therefore G.o.d receives none but the forsaken, heals none but the ill, gives sight to none but the blind, quickens none but the dead, makes pious none but the sinners, makes wise none but the ignorant,--in short, He has mercy on none but the miserable, and gives grace to none but those who are in disgrace. Whoever therefore, is a proud saint, wise or just, cannot become G.o.d's material and receive G.o.d's work within himself, but remains in his own work and makes an imaginary, seeming, false, and painted saint of himself, _i.e._, a hypocrite.” (183.) ”For he whom Thou [G.o.d]
dost justify will never become righteous by his works; hence it is called Thy righteousness, since Thou givest it to us by grace, and we do not obtain it by works.” (192.) ”Israel the true [new] man, does not take refuge in himself, nor in his strength, nor in his righteousness and wisdom.... For help and grace is not with themselves. They are sinners and d.a.m.ned in themselves, as He also says through Hosea: O Israel, with thee there is nothing but d.a.m.nation, but with Me is thine help.” (210.) ”He, He, G.o.d Himself, not they themselves, will deliver the true Israel.... Mark well, Israel has sin and cannot help itself.”
(211.)
In his explanation of Ps. 109 (110), 1518, Luther says: ”He calls these children [conceived from spiritual seed, the Word of G.o.d] dew, since no soul is converted and transformed from Adam's sinful childhood to the gracious childhood of Christ by human work, but only by G.o.d, who works from heaven like the dew, as Micah writes: 'The children of Israel will be like the dew given by G.o.d which does not wait for the hands of men.'”
(701.) Again: ”In every single man G.o.d precedes with grace and works before we pray for grace or cooperate. The Doctors call this _gratiam primam et praevenientem,_ that is, the first and prevenient grace.
Augustine: _Gratia Dei praevenit, ut velimus, ne frustra velimus._ G.o.d's grace prevenes that we will, lest we will in vain.” (710.)
In his 40 theses for the Heidelberg disputation, also of 1518, Luther says of man's powers in spiritual matters: ”13. Free will after sin [the Fall] is a mere t.i.tular affair [an empty t.i.tle only], and sins mortally when it does what it is able to do. _Liberum arbitrium post peccatum res est de solo t.i.tulo et dum facit, quod in se est, peccat mortaliter._”
”16. A man desirous of obtaining grace by doing what he is able to do adds sin to sin, becoming doubly guilty. _h.o.m.o putans, se ad gratiam velle pervenire faciendo, quod est in se, peccatum addit peccato, ut duplo reus fiat._” ”18. It is certain that a man must utterly despair of himself in order to become apt to acquire the grace of Christ. _Certum est, hominem de se penitus oportere desperare, ut aptus fiat ad consequendam gratiam Christi._” (W. 1, 354.) By way of explanation Luther added to thesis 13: ”The first part [of this thesis, that free will is a mere empty t.i.tle] is apparent, because the will is a captive and a servant to sin, not that it is nothing, but that it is free only to [do] evil--_non quod sit nihil, sed quod non sit liberum nisi ad malum._ John 8, 34. 36: 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.' Hence, St.
Augustine says in his book _De Spiritu et Litera:_ Free will without grace can only sin--_non nisi ad peccandum valet._ And in his second book against Julia.n.u.s: You call that a free will which in truth is captive, etc.” To thesis 16 Luther added: ”When man does what he is able to do (_dum facit, quod est in se_), he sins, seeking altogether his own. And if he is minded to become worthy of, and apt for, grace by a sin, he adds proud presumption.”
In his sermon of 1519 on Genesis 4, Luther remarked: ”This pa.s.sage ['The Lord had respect unto Abel'] subverts the entire liberty of our human will. _Hic locus semel invert.i.t universam libertatem voluntatis nostrae._” (Weimar 9, 337.) In a sermon of September 8, 1520, we read: ”By nature we are born accursed;... through Christ we are born again children of life. Thus we are born not by free will, not by works, not by our efforts. As a child in the womb is not born by its own works, but suffers itself to be carried and to be given birth, so we are justified by suffering, not by doing.” (474.) ”Where, then,” Luther exclaimed about the same time in his _Operationes in Psalmos,_ ”will free will remain? where the doing what one can? _Ubi ergo manebit liberum arbitrium, ubi facere quod in se?_” (5, 544. 74.) In a sermon of February 2, 1521, he said: ”Whatever grace is in us comes from G.o.d alone. Here free will is entirely dead. All that we attempt to establish with our powers is lost unless He prevenes and makes us alive through His grace. Grace is His own work, which we receive in our hearts by faith. This grace the soul did not possess before, for it is the new man.... The great proud saints will not do this [ascribe everything to G.o.d and His mercy]. They, too, would have a share in it, saying to our Lord: 'This I have done by my free will, this I have deserved.'” (9, 573; 5, 544.)
Thus Luther, from the very beginning of the Reformation, stood for the doctrine of justification, conversion, and salvation by grace alone.
Most emphatically he denied that man though free to a certain extent in human and temporal affairs, is able to cooperate with the powers of his natural, unregenerate will in matters spiritual and pertaining to G.o.d.
This was also the position which Luther victoriously defended against Erasmus in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ of 1525. Goaded on by the Romanists to come out publicly against the German heretic, the great Humanist, in his _Diatribe_ of 1524, had shrewdly planned to attack his opponent at the most vulnerable point. As such he regarded Luther's monergistic doctrine, according to which it is G.o.d alone who justifies, converts, preserves, and saves men, without any works of their own. In reality, however, as presently appeared from his glorious cla.s.sic on the _sola-gratia_ doctrine, Erasmus had a.s.saulted the strongest gate of Luther's fortress. For the source of the wonderful power which Luther displayed throughout the Reformation was none other than the divine conviction born of the Word of G.o.d that in every respect grace alone is the cause of our justification and salvation. And if ever this blessed doctrine was firmly established, successfully defended, and greatly glorified, it was in Luther's book against Erasmus.
Justification, conversion, perseverance in faith, and final salvation, obtained not by any effort of ours, but in every respect received as a gracious gift of G.o.d alone--that was the teaching also to which Luther faithfully, most determinedly, and without any wavering adhered throughout his life. In his _Large Confession_ of 1528, for example, we read: ”Herewith I reject and condemn as nothing but error all dogmas which extol our free will, as they directly conflict with this help and grace of our Savior Jesus Christ. For since outside of Christ death and sin are our lords, and the devil our G.o.d and prince, there can be no power or might, no wisdom or understanding, whereby we can qualify ourselves for, or strive after, righteousness and life; but we must be blinded people and prisoners of sin and the devil's own, to do and to think what pleases them and is contrary to G.o.d and His commandments.”