Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

“ Sancto efficiendæ justitiæ Dei, seu justitiæ spiritualis; "1 Cor. ii, 14. • Quia animalis homo non percipit ea, quæ sunt Spiritus Dei;' sed hæc fit in cordibus, cum

per verbum Spiritus Sanctus concipitur ; Art. 18. implying, that with the Holy Spirit. it is competent jointly to effect what, without such an aid, would prove impossible. And again, in a paragraph quoted from St. Austin; “ Esse fatemur liberum arbitrium omnibus ho6 minibus, habens quidem judicium rationis, non per “ quod sit idoneum in iis, quæ ad Deum pertinent; 6 sine Deo aut inchoare aut certe peragere;" contending that free will cannot either begin, or (if it can begin) at least not complete, a good work. But while we admit, that the supposed idea in these passages is not fully explained, we may surely argue, that the tendency of them is too obvious to escape observation. Although, however, in a formulary of faith, Melancthon (the author of both the preceding productions) might have thought it necessary to avoid a complete declaration of his meaning, yet he afterwards became explicit upon the point, in a work expressly composed for public instruction, the corrected edition of his Loci Theologici; a work, generally esteemed at the period under our consideration, of the greatest authority among the Lutherans, and one, as I have observed, of which Luther himself spoke in terms of high commendation. In the chapter De Libero Arbitrio, the doctrine of Synergism in conversion (as such a cooperation has usually been denominated) is thus openly avowed : “ De actionibus “ spiritualibus quæritur. p. 89. Sciendum est autem, “ Spiritum Sanctum efficacem esse per vocem Evangelii 6 auditam seu cogitatam, ut Galat. iii. dicitur, ' Ut pro• missionem Spiritus accipiamus per fidem;' ac sæpe 6 dictum est, cogitantes de Deo oportere ordiri a verbo “ Dei, non quærere Deum sine suo verbo. Cumque “ ordimur a verbo, hic concurrunt tres causæ bonæ actio"nis, verbum Dei, Spiritus Sanctus, et humana voluntas, assentiens nec repugnans verbo Dei. Posset enim ex“ cutere, ut excutit Saul sua sponte. Sed cum mens 6 audiens ac sustentans non repugnat, non indulget “ diffidentiæ, sed, adjuvante etiam Spiritu Sancto, co

natur assentiri, in hoc certamine voluntas non est 66 otiosa.

“ Veteres dixerunt, præcedente gratia, comitante vo6 luntate, bona opera fieri. Sic et Basilius inquit, uovov « θέλησον, και Θεός σροαπαντά, tantum velis, et Deus

præoccurrit.' Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, ad“juvat, sed nos viderimus, ne repugnemus.

Constat “ enim peccatum oriri a nobis non a voluntate Dei. ** Chrysostomus inquit, ο. δε έλκων, τον βουλόμενον έλκει. “ Sicut et in illo ipso loco Joan. dicitur, · Omnis qui

audit a Patre et discit, veniet ad me.' Discere jubet; “ id est, audire verbum, non repugnare, sed assentiri verbo Dei, non indulgere diffidentiæ.” p. 91, 92. Such was the explication of this point, which he gave in his last corrected edition of 1545. Fearing, however, that he might still be misunderstood, he afterwards inserted the passage quoted in the preceding note, and the following: “ Si tantum expectanda esset illa infusio quali“tatum, sine ulla nostra actione, sicut Enthusiaste et Manichæi finxerunt, nihil opus esset ministerio Evan“ gelico, nulla etiam lucta in animis esset. Sed insti66 tuit Deus ministerium, ut vox accipiatur, ut promis“ sionem mens cogitet et amplectatur, et dum repugna“mus diffidentiæ, Spiritus Sanctus simul in nobis sit " efficax.

“ Sic igitur illis, qui cessationem suam excusant, qui “putant nihil agere liberum arbitrium, respondeo; imo “ mandatum Dei æternum et immotum est, ut voci “ Evangelii obtemperes, ut Filium Dei audias, ut ag“ noscas Mediatorem. Quam tetra sunt hæc peccata, “nolle aspicere donatum generi humano Mediatorem Fi

“ lium Dei? Non possum, inquies. Imo aliquo modo

potes ; et cum te voce Evangelii sustentas, adjuvari “te a Deo petito, et scito velle Deum hoc ipso modo “nos convertere, cum promissione excitati luctamur nobiscum, invocamus, et repugnamus diffidentiæ nostra, et aliis vitiosis affectibus. Ideo veteres aliqui sic dixe“runt, liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gratiam, id est, audit promissionem, et assentiri conatur, et abjicit peccata contra conscientiam. “ Talia non fiunt in diabolis. Discrimen igitur inter “ diabolos et genus humanum consideretur. Fiunt “ autem hæc illustriora considerata promissione. Cum “promissio sit universalis, nec sint in Deo contrariæ vo“ luntates, necesse est, in nobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatur, id est,

necesse est, aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus.p. 93, 94. These quotations require no comment. And that they are solely confined to the action of the human will, while converting from evil, and not while persevering in good, is manifest not only from their general construction, but from that which immediately follows: “ Præterea, si de tota vita piorum loquamur, etsi est ingens imbecillitas, tamen aliqua' est “ libertas voluntatis, cum quidem jam a Spiritu Sancto “ adjuvetur, &c.” That the doctrine of Contingency was fully asserted in all the later editions of this work, will be shewn in Serm. VII. note 15.

Extracts of a similar description might be easily adduced from the other writings of Melancthon; but the above perhaps may be sufficiently convincing. I shall however add another from an Exposition of the Nicene Creed, sent by Melancthon to Cranmer in the year 1550, which is expressed in terms too unequivocal to be mistaken: “ Adversus Manichæos hæc fundamenta 66 tenenda sunt. . . .

omnes homines posse converti ad “ Deum, nec voluntatem se habere pure passive, sed aliquo

“ modo active, ac assentiri posse Deo trahenti.” Opera, vol. i. p. 415.

To be persuaded that the sentiments of the Loci Theologici were those of the Lutheran Church at the time, it will be only necessary to read the following declaration of Melancthon himself upon this very subject, in answer to the calumnies of Flaccius, who had accused him of having corrupted the doctrine of Luther : “ Quod vero clamitat Flaccius Illyricus, et doc“ trinam mutari, et restitui cæremonias quasdam aboli“ tas, primum de doctrina respondebo. Palam refutat 66 banc calumniam vox omnium docentium in Eccle“ siis nostris, et in Scholis. Ac ne longa aut obscura s sit responsio, de universa doctrina sentio, quod scripsi “ in eo libro, qui in multorum manibus est, titulo Lo“ corum Theologicorum, in quo non volui novum doctri5 næ genus constituere, sed fideliter collegi doctrinam

communem harum Ecclesiarum, quæ amplexe sunt confessionem exhibitam Imperatori anno 1530, quam sen“ tentiam judico esse perpetuam Ecclesiæ Catholicæ « doctrinam, ac volo dextre, et sine sophistica, et sine “ calumniis, intelligi id scriptum.

6 Et quantum mihi conscius sum, non studio dissen6 tiendi ab aliis, non amore novitatis, non piroveixia, “ aut ulla alia prava cupiditate impulsus sum, ut illam 6. epitomen colligerem. Sed tempora occasionem præ“ buerunt. Cum in prima inspectione Ecclesiarum" (viz. anno 1527.) “ comperissemus admodum dissonos clamo

res esse ineruditorum de multis rebus, summam doc“ trinæ, quam Lutherus in diversis et interpretationum " et concionum voluminibus tradidit, tanquam in unum

corpus redactam edidi, et quæsivi genus verborum, “ quo ad proprietatem, quæ ad perspicuitatem et con“ cordiam utilis est, discentes assuefierent, ac semper omnia scripta judicio Ecclesiæ nostræ et ipsius Lutheri per“ misi; de multis questionibus etiam diserte sciscitatus sum Lutherum, quid sentiret, ac multi pagellarum ristarum

exempla adhuc habent.” Epist. Lond. p. 134. Indeed so generally was this fact admitted at the exact æra, in which our Articles were composed, that when Osiander attempted to propagate a novel opinion upon Justification, all his colleagues opposed it upon the principle, that necessarily it could not be consistent with the doctrine of Luther, because contrary to that of Melancthon. “ Andreas Osiander, quem in Prussiam “ ivisse diximus, novum hoc tempore dogma propo“ nit, . . . . suæque sententiæ Lutherum etiam fuisse “ dicit. Reliqui vero theologi collegæ fortiter oppug“ nant, deque Luthero falsum esse dicunt, qui non ita “ multis mensibus ante mortem de libro Philippi Me“ lancthonis, quo sacræ Scripturæ Loci tractantur 6 Communes, præclarum et amplum reliquisset in primi “ tomi præfatione testimonium. Quum ergo Philippum invadat, Lutherum quoque sibi facere adversarium, quod idem ambo sentiant.Sleidani Comment. anno 1551.

On the whole, therefore, it seems certain, that the Lutherans at every period maintained the resistibility of grace, and a cooperation of the mind with it, after a previous conversion of heart, in the production of genuine holiness; and that, when their Creed began to be settled, they admitted likewise a cooperation during the act of conversion itself; for such a tenet was avowedly embraced in a work, purposely drawn up to comprise an unsophisticated explication of their faith, by the author of their public Confession, and as such universally received and studied. It should be added, that, when our Articles were composed, the Loci Theologici still remained in the highest credit; and that, although the Lutherans at a much later æra chose to reject its authority, upon the very topic under consideration, and revert to the idea of a pure passivity

« PreviousContinue »