Part 18 (2/2)

(CONC. TRIGL. 897, 43.)

153. Luther's Doctrine Endorsed.

To adhere faithfully to Luther's doctrine of conversion and salvation by grace alone was also the determination of the loyal Lutherans in their opposition to the Synergists. Planck correctly remarks that the doctrine which Flacius and the Anti-Synergists defended was the very doctrine which ”Luther advocated in his conflict with Erasmus.” (_Prot.

Lehrbegriff_ 4, 667.) This was substantially conceded even by the opponents. When, for example, at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, the Romanists demanded that Flacius's doctrine of free will be condemned by the Lutherans, Melanchthon declared that herein one ought not to submit to the Papists, who slyly, under the name of Illyricus [Flacius], demanded the condemnation of Luther, whose opinion in the doctrine of free will he [Melanchthon] was neither able nor willing to condemn.

(Gieseler 3, 2, 232.) In their _Confession,_ published in March, 1569, the theologians of Ducal Saxony (Wigand, Coelestin, Irenaeus, Kirchner, etc.) declared: ”We also add that we embrace the doctrine and opinion of Dr. Luther, the Elias of these latter days of the world, as it is most luminously and skilfully set forth in the book _De Servo Arbitrio,_ against Erasmus, in the _Commentary on Genesis,_ and in other books; and we hold that this teaching of Luther agrees with the eternal Word of G.o.d.” (Schluesselburg, _Catalogus_ 5, 133.)

Luther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine was embodied also in the _Formula of Concord,_ and this with a special endors.e.m.e.nt of his book _De Servo Arbitrio._ For here we read: ”Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter [the doctrine that our free will has no power whatever to qualify itself for righteousness, etc.] also in his book _De Servo Arbitrio; i.e._, Of the Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated and supported this position well and thoroughly [_egregie et solide_]; and afterward he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26. There likewise his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar disputations introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful way against all misunderstanding and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal and refer others.” (897, 44; 981, 28.) In the pa.s.sage of his _Commentary on Genesis_ referred to by the _Formula,_ Luther does not, as has been claimed, retract or modify his former statements concerning the inability of the human will and the monergism of grace, but emphasizes that, in reading _De Servo Arbitrio,_ one must heed and not overlook his frequent admonitions to concern oneself with G.o.d as He has revealed Himself in the Gospel, and not speculate concerning G.o.d in His transcendence, absoluteness, and majesty, as the One in whom we live and move and have our being, and without whom nothing can either exist or occur, and whose wonderful ways are past finding out. (CONC. TRIGL., 898.) And the fact that the Lutheran theologians, living at the time and immediately after the framing of the _Formula of Concord,_ objected neither to the book _De Servo Arbitrio_ itself nor to its public endors.e.m.e.nt by the _Formula of Concord,_ is an additional proof of the fact that they were in complete agreement with Luther's teaching of conversion and salvation by grace alone. (Frank 1, 120.)

This _sola-gratia_-doctrine, the vital truth of Christianity, rediscovered and proclaimed once more by Luther, was, as stated, the target at which Erasmus directed his shafts. In his _Diatribe_ he defined the power of free will to be the faculty of applying oneself to grace (_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_), and declared that those are the best theologians who, while ascribing as much as possible to the grace of G.o.d, do not eliminate this human factor. He wrote: Free will is ”the ability of the human will according to which man is able either to turn himself to what leads to eternal salvation or to turn away from it.” (St.L. 18, 1612.) Again: ”Those, therefore, who are farthest apart from the views of Pelagius ascribe to grace the most, but to free will almost nothing; yet they do not abolish it entirely. They say that man cannot will anything good without special grace, cannot begin anything good, cannot continue in it, cannot complete anything without the chief thing, the constant help of divine grace. This opinion seems to be pretty probable because it leaves to man a striving and an effort, and yet does not admit that he is to ascribe even the least to his own powers.” (1619.) One must avoid extremes, and seek the middle of the road, said Erasmus. Pelagius had fallen into Scylla, and Luther into Charybdis. ”I am pleased with the opinion of those who ascribe to free will something, but to grace by far the most.” (1666.) Essentially, this was the error held, nursed, and defended also by the Synergists, though frequently in more guarded and ambiguous phrases. But their theory of conversion also involved, as Schaff and Schmauk put it, ”the idea of a partners.h.i.+p between G.o.d and man, and a corresponding division of work and merit.” (_Conf. Principle,_ 600.)

However, these attempts to revamp the Semi-Pelagian teaching resulted in a controversy which more and longer than any other endangered and disquieted the Lutheran Church, before as well as after the adoption of the _Formula of Concord._ Whether the unregenerate man, when the Word of G.o.d is preached, and the grace of G.o.d is offered him, is able to prepare himself for grace, accept it, and a.s.sent thereto, was, according to the _Formula of Concord,_ ”the question upon which, _for quite a number of years now,_ there has been a controversy among some theologians in the churches of the Augsburg Confession.” (881, 2.) And of all the controversies after Luther's death the synergistic controversy was most momentous and consequential. For the doctrine of grace with which it dealt is the vital breath of every Christian. Without it neither faith nor the Christian religion can live and remain. ”If we believe,” says Luther in _De Servo Arbitrio,_ ”that Christ has redeemed men by His blood, then we must confess that the entire man was lost; otherwise we make Christ superfluous or the Redeemer of but the meanest part of us, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious.” Reading the book of Erasmus, in which he bent every effort toward exploding the doctrine of grace, Luther felt the hand of his opponent clutching his throat. In the closing paragraph of _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther wrote: ”I highly laud and extol you for this thing also, that of all others you alone have gone to the heart of the subject.... You alone have discerned the core of the matter and have aimed at the throat, for which I thank you heartily.--_Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti, et ipsum iugulum petisti, pro quo ex animo tibi gratias ago, in hac enim causa libentius versor, quantum favet tempus et otium._” (E. v. a. 7, 367. 137; St. L.

18, 1967; Pieper, _Dogm._ 2, 543.) And so the Synergists, who renewed the doctrine of Erasmus, also flew at the throat of Christianity.

Genuine Lutheranism would have been strangled if synergism had emerged victorious from this great controversy of grace versus free will.

154. The Father of Synergism.

During the first period of his activity in Wittenberg, Melanchthon was in perfect agreement with Luther also on the question of man's inability in spiritual matters and the sole activity, or monergism, of grace in the work of his salvation. As late as 1530 he incorporated these views in the _Augsburg Confession,_ as appears, in particular, from Articles II, V, XVIII, and XIX. His later doctrine concerning the three concurring causes of conversion (the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the consenting will of man), as well as his theory explaining synergistically, from an alleged dissimilar action in man, the difference why some are saved while others are lost, is not so much as hinted at in the Confession. But even at this early date (1530) or soon after, Melanchthon also does not seem any longer to have agreed whole-heartedly with Luther in the doctrine of grace and free will. And in the course of time his theology drifted farther and farther from its original monergistic moorings. Nor was Luther wholly unaware of the secret trend of his colleague and friend toward--Erasmus. In 1536, when the deviations of Melanchthon and Cruciger, dealt with in our previous chapter, were brought to his notice, Luther exclaimed: ”_Haec est ipsissima theologia Erasmi._ This is the identical theology of Erasmus, nor can there be anything more opposed to our doctrine.” (Kolde, _a.n.a.lecta,_ 266.)

That Melanchthon's theology was verging toward Erasmus appears from his letter of June 22, 1537, to Veit Dietrich, in which he said that he desired a more thorough exposition also of the doctrines of predestination and of the _consent of the will._ (_C. R._ 3, 383.) Before this, in his _Commentary on Romans_ of 1532, he had written that there is some cause of election also in man; _viz._, in as far as he does not repudiate the grace offered--”_tamen eatenus aliquam causam in accipiente esse quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat_.” (Seeberg 4, 442.) In an addition to his _Loci_ of 1533 he also spoke of a cause of justification and election residing in man. (_C. R._ 21, 332.) In the revised editions of 1535 and 1543 he plainly began to prepare the way for his later bold and unmistakable deviations. For even though unable to point out a clean-cut and unequivocal synergistic statement, one cannot read these editions without scenting a Semi-Pelagian and Erasmian atmosphere. What Melanchthon began to teach was the doctrine that man, when approached by the Word of G.o.d, is able to a.s.sume either an att.i.tude of _pro_ or _con_, _i.e._, for or against the grace of G.o.d. The same applies to the _Variata_ of 1540 in which the frequent ”_adiuvari_”

there employed, though not incorrect as such, was not without a synergistic flavor.

Tschackert remarks of the _Loci_ of 1535: ”Melanchthon wants to make man responsible for his state of grace. Nor does the human will in consequence of original sin lose the ability to decide itself when incited; the will produces nothing new by its own power, but a.s.sumes an att.i.tude toward what approaches it. When man hears the Word of G.o.d, and the Holy Spirit produces spiritual affections in his heart, the will can either a.s.sent or turn against it. In this way Melanchthon arrives at the formula, ever after stereotype with him, that there are three concurring causes in the process of conversion: 'the Word of G.o.d, the Holy Spirit, and the human will, which, indeed, is not idle, _but strives against its infirmity.'_” (520.)

However, during the life of Luther, Melanchthon made no further measurable progress towards synergism. Perhaps the unpleasant experiences following upon his innovations in the doctrine of good works acted as a check also on the public development of his synergistic tendencies. During Luther's life Melanchthon, as he himself admitted to Carlowitz (106), dissimulated, keeping his deviating views to himself and his intimate friends. After Luther's death, however, he came out unmistakably and publicly, also in favor of synergism, endorsing even the Erasmian definition of free will as ”the power in man to apply himself to grace.” He plainly taught that, when drawn by the Holy Spirit, the will is able to decide _pro_ or _con,_ to obey or to resist.

Especially in his lectures, Melanchthon--not indeed directly, but mentioning the name of Flacius--continually lashed such phrases of Luther as ”purely pa.s.sive,” ”block,” ”resistance,”--a fact to which Schluesselburg, who had studied in Wittenberg, refers in support of his a.s.sertion that Melanchthon had departed from Luther's teaching on free will. (_Catalogus_ 5, 32.) While Melanchthon formerly (in his _Loci_ of 1543) had spoken of three causes of a good action (_bonae actionis_) he now publicly advocated the doctrine of three concurring causes of _conversion._ Now he boldly maintained that, since the grace of G.o.d is universal, one must a.s.sume, and also teach, that there are different actions in different men, which accounts for the fact that some are converted and saved while others are lost. According to the later Melanchthon, therefore, man's eternal salvation evidently does not depend on the gracious operations of G.o.d's Holy Spirit and Word alone, but also on his own correct conduct toward grace. In his heart, especially when approaching the mercy-seat in prayer, Melanchthon, no doubt, forgot and disavowed his own teaching, and believed and practised Luther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine. But it cannot be denied that, in his endeavors to harmonize universal grace with the fact that not all, but some only, are saved, Melanchthon repudiated the monergism of Luther, espoused and defended the powers of free will in spiritual matters, and thought, argued, spoke, and wrote in terms of synergism. Indeed, Melanchthon must be regarded as the father of both synergism and the rationalistic methods employed in its defense, and as the true father also of the modern rationalistico-synergistic theology represented by such distinguished men as Von Hofmann, Thomasius, Kahnis, Luthardt, etc.

(Pieper 2, 582; Frank 1, 231.)

155. Unsound Statements of Melanchthon.

Following are some of the ambiguous and false deliverances of Melanchthon: In the _Loci_ of 1535 the so-called human cause of conversion which must be added to the Word and Spirit is described as endeavoring, striving, and wis.h.i.+ng to obey and believe. We read: ”We do not say this to ensnare the consciences, or to deter men from the endeavor to obey and believe, or from making an effort. On the contrary, since we are to begin with the Word, we certainly must not resist the Word of G.o.d, but strive to obey it.... We see that these causes are united: the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the will, which is certainly not idle, but strives against its infirmity. In this manner ecclesiastical writers are accustomed to join these causes. Basil says: 'Only will, and G.o.d will precede,' G.o.d precedes, calls, moves, a.s.sists us, but let us beware lest we resist.... Chrysostom says: He who draws, draws him who is willing.” (_C. R._ 21, 376.)

In conversion and salvation G.o.d certainly must do and does His share, but man must beware lest he fail to do what is required of him. This is also the impression received from Melanchthon's statements in the third elaboration of his _Loci,_ 1543. We read: ”Here three causes of a good action concur (_hic concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis_): the Word of G.o.d, the Holy Spirit, and the human will a.s.senting to and not resisting the Word of G.o.d (_humana voluntas a.s.sentiens, nec repugnans Verbo Dei_). For it could expel [the Spirit], as Saul expelled [Him] of his own free will. But when the mind hearing and sustaining itself does not resist, does not give way to diffidence, but, the Holy Spirit a.s.sisting, endeavors to a.s.sent,--in such a struggle the will is not inactive (_in hoc certamine voluntas non est otiosa_). The ancients have said that good works are done when grace precedes and the will follows.

So also Basil says: '_Monon theleson, kai theos proapanta_, Only will, and G.o.d antic.i.p.ates. G.o.d precedes, calls, moves, a.s.sists us; but as for us, let us see to it that we do not resist. _Deus antevert.i.t nos, vocat, movet, adiuvat, SED NOS VIDERIMUS, ne repugnemus,_' (21, 658.) And Phil.

1, 6: 'He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,' _i.e._, we are a.s.sisted by G.o.d (_adiuvamur a Deo_), but we must hear the Word of G.o.d and not resist the drawing G.o.d.”

(916.) ”G.o.d draws our minds that they will, but we must a.s.sent, not resist. _Deus trahit mentes, ut velint, sed a.s.sentiri nos, non repugnare oportet._” (917.) Here we also meet the remark: ”But the will, when a.s.sisted by the Holy Spirit, becomes more free. _Fit autem voluntas adiuvata Spiritu Sancto magis libera._” (663.) Frank comments pertinently that the _magis_ presupposes a certain degree of liberty of the will before the a.s.sistance of the Holy Spirit. (1, 198.)

The boldest synergistic statements are found in the _Loci_ of 1548. It was the year of the Leipzig Interim, in which the same error was embodied as follows: ”The merciful G.o.d does not deal with man as with a block, but draws him in such a way that his will, too, cooperates.” (_C.

R._ 7, 51. 260.) As to the _Loci_ of this year, Bindseil remarks in the _Corpus Reformatorum:_ ”This edition is famous on account of certain paragraphs inserted by the author in the article on Free Will. For these additions contain the Erasmian definition of free will (that it is the faculty of applying oneself to grace), on account of which Melanchthon was charged with synergism by the Flacians.... For this reason the edition is called by J. T. Mayer 'the worst of all (_omnium pessima_).'”

At the Weimar colloquy, 1560, even Strigel was not willing to identify himself openly with the Erasmian definition of free will (_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_) as found in one of these sections. When Flacius quoted the pa.s.sage, Strigel retorted excitedly: ”I do not defend that definition which you have quoted from the recent edition [1548]. When did you hear it from me? When have I undertaken to defend it?” (Frank 1, 199. 135.) At the Herzberg colloquy Andreae remarked: ”The _Loci Communes_ of Melanchthon are useful. But whoever reads the _locus de libero arbitrio_ must confess, even if he judges most mildly, that the statements are dubious and ambiguous. And what of the four paragraphs which were inserted after Luther's death? For here we read: 'There must of necessity be a cause of difference in us why a Saul is rejected, a David received.'” (Pieper 2, 587.)

From these additions of 1548 we cite: ”Nor does conversion occur in David in such a manner as when a stone is turned into a fig: but free will does something in David; for when he hears the rebuke and the promise, he willingly and freely confesses his fault. And his will does something when he sustains himself with this word: The Lord hath taken away your sin. And when he endeavors to sustain himself with this word, he is already a.s.sisted by the Holy Spirit.” (_C. R._ 21, 659.) Again: ”I therefore answer those who excuse their idleness because they think that free will does nothing, as follows: It certainly is the eternal and immovable will of G.o.d that you obey the voice of the Gospel, that you hear the Son of G.o.d, that you acknowledge the Mediator. How black is that sin which refuses to behold the Mediator, the Son of G.o.d, presented to the human race! You will answer: 'I cannot.' But in a manner you can (_immo aliquo modo potes_), and when you sustain yourself with the voice of the Gospel, then pray that G.o.d would a.s.sist you, and know that the Holy Spirit is efficacious in such consolation. Know that just in this manner G.o.d intends to convert us, when we, roused by the promise wrestle with ourselves, pray and resist our diffidence and other vicious affections. For this reason some of the ancient Fathers have said that free will in man is the faculty to apply himself to grace (_liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gratiam_); _i.e._, he hears the promise, endeavors to a.s.sent, and abandons sins against conscience. Such things do not occur in devils. The difference therefore between the devils and the human race ought to be considered. These matters however, become still clearer when the promise is considered.

For since the promise is universal, and since there are no contradictory wills in G.o.d, there must of necessity be in us some cause of difference why Saul is rejected and David is received; _i.e._, there must of necessity be some dissimilar action in these two. _c.u.m promissio sit universalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriae voluntates, necesse est in n.o.bis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abiiciatur. David recipiatur, id est, necesse est aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus._ Properly understood, this is true, and the use [_usus_] in the exercises of faith and in true consolation (when our minds acquiesce in the Son of G.o.d, shown in the promise) will ill.u.s.trate this copulation of causes: the Word of G.o.d, the Holy Spirit, and the will.” (_C. R._ 21, 659f.)

At the colloquy of Worms, 1557, Melanchthon, interpellated by Brenz, is reported to have said that the pa.s.sage in his _Loci_ of 1548 defining free will as the faculty of applying oneself to grace referred to the regenerated will (_voluntas renata_), as, he said, appeared from the context. (Gieseler 3, 2, 225; Frank 1, 198.) As a matter of fact, however, the context clearly excludes this interpretation. In the pa.s.sage quoted, Melanchthon, moreover, plainly teaches: 1. that in conversion man, too, can do, and really does, something by willingly confessing his fault, by sustaining himself with the Word, by praying that G.o.d would a.s.sist him, by wrestling with himself, by striving against diffidence, etc.; 2. that the nature of fallen man differs from that of the devils in this, that his free will is still able to apply itself to grace, endeavor to a.s.sent to it, etc.; 3. that the dissimilar actions resulting from the different use of this natural ability accounts for the fact that some are saved while others are lost. Such was the plain teaching of Melanchthon from which he never receded, but which he, apart from other publications, reaffirmed in every new edition of his _Loci._ For all, including the last one to appear during his life (1559), contain the additions of 1548. ”The pa.s.sage added by the author [Melanchthon, 1548] after Luther's death is repeated in all subsequent editions,” says Bindseil. (_C. R._ 21, 570.)

The sections which were added to the _Loci_ after 1548 also breathe the same synergistic spirit. In 1553 Melanchthon inserted a paragraph which says that, when approached by the Holy Spirit, the will can obey or resist. We read: ”The liberty of the human will after the Fall, also in the non-regenerate, is the faculty by virtue of which man is able to govern his motions, _i.e._, he can enjoin upon his external members such actions as agree, or such as do not agree, with the Law of G.o.d. But he cannot banish doubts from his mind and evil inclinations from his heart without the light of the Gospel and without the Holy Spirit. But when the will is drawn by the holy Spirit, it can obey or resist. _c.u.m autem trahitur a Spiritu Sancto, potest obsequi et repugnare._” (21, 1078; 13, 162.)

<script>