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,

_Analecta,_ 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 God, is able to assume either an attitude

of _pro_ or _con_, _i.e._, for or against the grace of God. 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 assumes an

attitude toward what approaches it. When man hears the Word of God, and

the Holy Spirit produces spiritual affections in his heart, the will can

either assent 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 God, 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 passive," "block," "resistance,"--a fact to which

Schluesselburg, who had studied in Wittenberg, refers in support of his

assertion 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 God is

universal, one must assume, 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 God'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.)

Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church · 第 167 / 313 题