关于“论自由意志”的灵界见闻
503# 对此还要附加以下几则可记之事。
第一则：我听说，有人宣告召开一次会议，要在会上商议人在属灵事物中的自由意志。这事发生在灵界。与会者来自各方，都是些学者；他们在先前所生活的世界中，曾思想过这个问题。其中也有许多人，曾参加尼西亚会议以前和以后各种大公会议与小型会议。
他们聚集在一座圆形殿堂中，这殿堂类似罗马那座称为“万神殿”的建筑；它从前曾献给一切神明的崇拜，后来又由教皇宝座重新奉献给一切圣殉道者的崇拜。殿堂四壁旁也有类似祭坛的陈设；每一座祭坛前都有长椅，与会者便坐在其上，又以手肘倚着祭坛，仿佛倚着一张张桌案。会上没有指定任何主席来主持他们；但每个人一旦兴致涌起，便冲到中央，凭胸中所蓄，公开发表自己的定论。令我惊讶的是，凡在这次会议中的人，都带着种种确认之论，主张人在属灵事物中完全无能，因而讥笑人在这些事上有自由意志。
【2】他们聚集之后，忽然有一人冲到中央，高声宣称说：“人在属灵事物中没有任何自由意志，并不比罗得之妻变成盐柱以后多出分毫。因为，若人有更多自由意志，他必定会凭自己为自己索取我们教会的信仰；而这信仰乃是：父上帝完全出于祂自己的自由与美意，白白赐给祂所愿意赐的人，并在祂所愿意赐的时候赐下。若人也能凭自己的某种自由或自我意愿为自己取得信仰，那么，上帝的美意与白白恩赐就全然不成立了。如此，我们的信仰——这颗昼夜照耀在我们面前的明星——便会像坠落的星辰一样消散在空气中。”
【3】此人之后，又有一人从自己的座位上跳起，说：“人在属灵事物中所有的自由意志，并不比走兽更多，甚至不比狗更多。因为，若人有这种自由意志，他就会凭自己行善；然而一切善都来自上帝，人不能为自己取得任何不是从天上赐下的东西。”
此人之后，又有一人从座位上跃起，在中央提高声音说：“人在属灵事物中，甚至在觉察这些事上，所有的自由意志，并不比白昼中的猫头鹰更多，甚至不比仍藏在蛋中的雏鸟更多。他在这些事上全然盲目，如同鼹鼠；因为，若他在觉察有关信仰、救恩和永生之事上真有猞猁般锐利的眼力，他就会相信自己能够重生并拯救自己，也会试图这样做；于是，他便以功德和功绩玷污自己的思想与行为。”
随后，又有一人跑到中央，发表如下断言：“凡以为自己在亚当堕落之后，还能在属灵事物中有所意愿、有所理解的人，都是发狂之人，终将成为疯癫者；因为那样他就会相信自己是一个小神或神灵，以为自己按自己的权利拥有神性能力的一部分。”
【4】此人之后，又有一人气喘吁吁地来到中央，腋下夹着一本书；这本书就是今日福音派宣誓承认为正统的书，他称之为《协和信条》。他打开书，从中读出以下文字：
“人对于善已经全然败坏并死亡，以致在人性中，在堕落以后、重生以前，甚至没有一星半点属灵能力存留或残余，使他能够为上帝的恩典预备自己，或领受所赐的恩典；也不能由自己、凭自己成为能接受此恩典者；在属灵事物中，他不能理解、相信、接纳、思想、意愿、开始、完成、行动、运行、合作，或使自己应用并适应恩典；也不能由自己在归正上有所作为，无论是一半，还是最微小的一部分。并且，人于关乎灵魂得救的属灵事物中，就如罗得之妻的盐柱，又如没有生命的木头或石头，没有眼睛、口舌或任何感官的使用。不过，他仍有移动身体的能力，也就是能支配外在肢体，前往公共聚会，听圣言和福音。”
以上引文可见于我所据版本第656、658、661—663、671—673页。读完之后，众人一齐拥上来，同声喊道：“这才是真正的正统！”
【5】我站在旁边，专注地听着这一切；我在灵里愤然激动，便高声质问他们：“如果你们把人在属灵事物中说成盐柱、走兽、瞎子和疯人，那么你们的神学又是什么？难道其中每一项、每一条不都是属灵的吗？”
听了这话，他们沉默片刻，随后回答说：“在我们全部神学中，没有任何属灵之物是理性能够领会的。唯有我们的信仰才是属灵的；但我们已经把它严严实实地封闭起来，免得有人向内窥探；并且我们也已防止任何属灵之光从中流出，被理智看见。再者，人对于这信仰，不能凭自己的任何自由意志贡献一丝一毫。我们也把仁爱从一切属灵性中除去，使它成为纯粹道德性的东西；十诫也是如此。至于称义、赦罪、重生，以及由此而来的拯救，我们也不传讲任何属灵之事；我们说信仰成就这些事，但究竟如何成就，我们完全不知道。我们以痛悔取代悔改；并且，为免它被认为是属灵的，我们又使它与信仰毫不相接。至于救赎，我们也只采用纯然属世的观念，即：父上帝把人类封闭在定罪之下，而祂的儿子把这定罪承担在自己身上，并忍受被钉在十字架上；如此，祂便迫使自己的父转向怜悯。此外还有许多类似说法，在这些说法中，你找不到任何属灵之物，只有纯粹属世之物。”
【6】然而，我仍在先前所激起的愤慨中，继续说道：“如果人没有在属灵事物中的自由意志，那么人又是什么，不过是牲畜而已？人岂不是正因这一点才高于野兽吗？没有这种自由意志，教会是什么，不过是一张漂布匠的黑脸，眼中只有一点白色？没有这种自由意志，圣言是什么，不过是一部空书？圣言中最频繁说的、最明确命令的，岂不就是人应当爱上帝，也应当爱邻舍，并且应当信；又说人的救恩和生命，正依照他怎样爱、怎样信而归于他吗？谁没有能力理解并实行圣言和十诫中所吩咐的事？如果这种能力没有赐给人，上帝怎能把这些事规定并命令人遵行？”
【7】“你去告诉一个乡下人——他的心智并未被神学上的谬误预先堵塞——说他在信仰、仁义以及由此而来的救恩之事上，不能理解、不能意愿，连一根木头、一块石头都不如，甚至不能使自己转向这些事，并与之相应；难道他不会放声大笑，说：‘还有比这更疯狂的吗？那我还要祭司和他的讲道做什么？那么教堂与马厩又有何异？敬拜又与耕田有何不同？啊，这样说话是何等痴狂，简直是愚妄之上的愚妄！谁否认一切善都来自上帝？但人岂不是蒙赐，可以由自己而从上帝行善吗？信仰也是如此。’”
他们听见这些话，便全体喊叫说：“我们从正统出发，正统地说话；你却从乡下人出发，乡下人式地说话。”
但就在这时，忽有一道闪电从天而降。为免被它吞灭，他们便成群冲出，各自逃回自己的家去。
503# 对此，我补充几个记事。记事一：
我听说召开了一次集会，要讨论人在属灵事物上的自由意志或自由选择。这次集会发生在灵界。出席的有来自各个地区或方位的学者，他们在以前所生活的世界上曾思考过这个主题，也有许多人参加过尼西亚议会前后大大小小的议会。他们聚集在一种圆形圣殿中，就像在罗马被称为万神殿的圣殿，万神殿以前被奉献用来敬拜所有的神，但后来根据教皇的法令，它专用于敬拜所有神圣的殉道者。在这座圣殿中，沿着墙壁似乎有祭坛，而每个祭坛旁边都有低矮的长凳，会众坐在这些长凳上，胳膊肘靠在祭坛上，就像靠在许多桌子上一样。他们没有指定会议主席来担任他们的领导人；相反，每个人在欲望的促使下，或当感受到冲动时，都会冲到他们中间，倾吐心里的东西，发表自己的意见。令我惊讶的是，集会的所有成员都充满了证据，证明人在属灵事物上完全无能，并嘲笑在这些事上的自由意志或自由选择的观念。
所有人一聚齐，其中一个人就突然冲到中间，大声发表他的以下意见：“人在属灵事物上所拥有的自由意志或自由选择，并不比变成盐柱的罗得的妻子更多。人若拥有比这更多的自由意志或自由选择，肯定会凭自己将我们教会的信仰硬性归于自己，这信仰就是，父神出于祂的整个自由和美意在祂愿意的时候将信仰白白地赐给祂所愿意的人。如果人能出于任何自由或美意将这信仰硬性归于自己，那么对神来说，这美意和白白的恩典是不可能的；因此，我们的信仰，这颗在我们面前日夜闪耀的星星，会像流星一样在空中消散。”
在他之后，另一个人从长凳上跳起来说：“人在属灵事物上所拥有的自由意志或自由选择，并不比一个动物，甚到一条狗更多；因为他若拥有，就会凭自己行善；而事实上，一切良善都来自神，若不是从天上赐给人的，人就不能得什么。”在他之后，又有一个人从座位上跳起来，在会众中间提高嗓门说：“人在属灵事物上，甚至在对它们的辨别上没有自由意志或自由选择，就像猫头鹰在白天看不见，或仍藏在蛋壳里的小鸡看不见一样。在这些事上，他和鼹鼠一样完全是瞎的；因为他若目光锐利，清晰地感知到信仰、救赎和永生的事，就会以为他能重生并拯救自己，甚至试图这样做，从而通过累加功德，或不断将功德归于自己而亵渎自己的思维和行为。”然后，另一个人冲到中间，发表了这样的观点：“人若以为自亚当堕落后，自己能意愿或理解任何属灵事物，就是疯狂的，并变成一个疯子，因为这时，他会以为自己是一个小神或一种神明，凭自己的权利分享神性能力。”
紧随其后的另一个人气喘吁吁地冲到中间，腋下夹着一本名为《协和信条》的书；如他所说的，福音派现在对着这本书的正统观念发誓。他打开这本书，从中读了以下摘录：“人对着良善完全败坏和死亡了；因此，自堕落以来、重生之前，人的本性里面没有一丝属灵力量的火花，使他能为神的恩典做好准备，或在被提供时理解它，或从自己那里并凭自己能接受它，或在属灵事物上能理解、相信、拥抱、思考、意愿、开始、完成、行动、运作、合作，或应用于恩典，或使自己适应恩典，或凭自己为他的归依或半部分或最小程度地做出任何贡献。此外，在关注灵魂救赎的属灵事物上，人就像罗得的妻子变成的盐柱，或像没有生命的木头或石头，不用眼睛、嘴巴，或任何感官。尽管如此，他仍拥有从一个地方移动到另一个地方的能力，也就是说，他能支配他的外在肢体，参加公共集会，听圣言和福音。”这些段落出现出现在我的版本中（656，658，661-663，671-673页）。听到这些话，他们都挤在一起，一起喊道：“这真是正统。”
我站在旁边。专心听着所说的这一切；我的灵在我里面燃烧，我大声问道：“如果你们在属灵事物上把人变成一根盐柱，一个动物，又瞎眼又疯狂，那么你们的神学是什么？神学的一切教导，无论总体还是细节，不都是属灵的吗？”对此，他们沉默了一会儿，回答说：“在我们整个神学体系中，没有理性所理解的任何属灵事物。它里面唯一属灵的东西就是我们的信仰；但我们已经小心地严格关闭了这一点，以防止有人调查它；我们特别注意，不让一丝灵性之光或属灵之光从中逃脱出来，出现在理解力面前。此外，人出于自己的意愿或选择对这种信仰没有一丁点贡献。我们还将仁爱从一切属灵事物中完全移除，把它变成纯道德的，对十诫也是如此。关于称义、罪的赦免、重生、从而救赎，我们不教导任何属灵事物；我们说，信仰产生这些作为；但至于如何产生的，我们一无所知。我们用悔罪来代替悔改，为了避免这悔罪被认为是属灵的，我们把它从信仰中完全移除了，甚至（它与信仰）没有任何最微小的接触。关于救赎，我们只采用纯属世观念，即：父神把整个人类都包括在诅咒的宣判中，祂的儿子把这个诅咒担在自己身上，让自己被钉在十字架上，从而打动祂的父亲感到怜悯；此外还有其它类似观念，你在其中找不到任何属灵之物，只会发现属世之物。”
对此，我之前的愤慨仍在持续，我说：“如果人在属灵事物上没有自由意志或自由选择，他不就成了动物吗？不正是这自由意志或自由选择把他提升到野兽之上吗？没有它，教会不就是一张丰满的黑脸，只有眼睛露出一点白吗？没有它，圣言不就成了毫无意义的空书吗？在圣言中，还有什么比人要爱神、爱邻，也要相信，再者，人在他的爱和信的层次上拥有生命和救赎更常被宣布和吩咐的呢？每个人都有能力理解并实行在圣言和十诫中所吩咐的事。除非神赋予人们做这些事的能力，否则祂怎么能命令并吩咐人们去做它们呢？
“告诉任何心智没有被神学问题上的谬误堵塞的乡下人，他在信仰和仁爱，以及由此而来的救赎问题上，就像一根木头或一块石头一样没有能力理解和意愿，甚至没有能力适用于它们，并适合接受它们。难道他不会由衷地嘲笑你，说：‘还有什么比这更荒谬、更疯狂的呢？在这种情况下，我为什么要麻烦牧师，费心听他的讲道呢？教堂和马厩有什么区别？敬拜和犁地有何不同？说这种话真是疯了！愚蠢至极。谁会否认一切良善都来自神？神已经赋予人凭自己行善，以及相信的能力。’”听到这些话，他们都惊呼道：“我们出于正统以正统的方式说话；但你却出于乡下人的观念以乡下人的方式说话。”于是，一道闪电突然从天而降，为避免这闪电烧灭他们，他们成群结队地冲出去，各自逃回了自己的家。
503. To these points I will add the following memorable occurrences.
The first memorable occurrence. I heard that an assembly had been called for and charged with discussing human free choice in spiritual matters.
The gathering took place in the spiritual world. There were scholars in attendance from every region who, in the physical world in which they had previously lived, had given thought to this subject. It also included many of those who participated in the councils that occurred before or after the Council of Nicaea.
The participants gathered in a round temple much like the Pantheon in Rome, which was formerly devoted to the worship of all the gods, but was later dedicated by the papal seat to the worship of all the holy martyrs. In this spiritual temple, too, there were altars of a kind along the walls, but in this case there were benches at each altar. The participants were sitting on these benches and leaning their elbows on the altars as if they were tables. They had no designated chairperson to act as their leader; instead individuals, whenever they felt the urge, would burst forth into the center of the room and pour out their considered opinion. I found it astounding that everyone present at that assembly was convinced that human beings are completely powerless in regard to spiritual matters. They all ridiculed the notion of spiritual free choice.
[2] When the participants had gathered, one of them suddenly burst forth into the center of the room and blasted out the following in a loud voice: "We have no free choice in spiritual matters - no more freedom than Lot's wife had after she was turned into a pillar of salt. If any free choice had remained in us, surely we would have acted on our own and acquired for ourselves the faith of our church; but our faith is the belief that it is entirely God the Father's free choice and decision to grant this faith to whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes. God would not have this decision or this option at all, though, if we were able to acquire faith for ourselves through some freedom or decision of our own. In that case our faith, which is a star that shines before us day and night, would burn out like a shooting star hitting the atmosphere. "
After that another person burst forth from his bench and said, "We have no more free choice in spiritual matters than an animal does - no more than a dog. If we did possess it, we would do good things on our own; but in fact all goodness is from God and we cannot receive anything that is not given us from heaven. "
[3] After him, another person jumped up from his chair and lifted his voice from the center of the room and said, "Human beings have no more free choice in spiritual matters, or even sight of spiritual matters, than a barn owl has in the daytime or a chick has when it is still hidden within its egg - both are as blind as a mole. If we were sharp-sighted enough to see things related to faith, salvation, and eternal life, we would believe that we were capable of regenerating and saving ourselves, and we might actually attempt it and desecrate both our thoughts and actions with a constant desire for reward. "
Another person rushed to the center of the room and put forth this opinion: "Those who think they are able to will and understand anything related to spiritual matters since the fall of Adam are insane and become raving lunatics, because they believe they are a deity or demigod who owns a share of divine power outright. "
[4] Then another person came breathlessly into the center of the room, carrying under his arm a book containing the orthodoxy, as he called it, that contemporary Evangelicals swear to observe, titled the Formula of Concord. He opened the book and read the following passage from it:
We are utterly corrupt and dead to what is good, so that in our nature after the Fall but before our regeneration, not the least spark of spiritual power remains that would enable us to prepare ourselves for the grace of God, or to accept it once it was offered, or to make room for grace by ourselves and on our own, or to understand, believe, comprehend, think, will, start, finish, enact, work, or cooperate in spiritual matters, or to adapt or accommodate ourselves to grace, or to contribute anything to our own conversion, by half or to the least extent. In spiritual matters, which concern the salvation of our souls, we are like Lot's wife when she became a pillar of salt, and like a log or a stone, devoid of life, which has no functioning eyes, mouth, or senses. Nevertheless, we do retain locomotive power to control our outer parts, go to church, and hear the Word and the Gospel. [In the edition I own, these statements appear on pages 656, 658, 661, 662, 663, 671, 672, 673]
[5] After hearing these words, they all agreed with them and exclaimed in unison, "Yes, that is indeed the orthodox view. "
I was standing nearby, listening intently to all this. Because I had grown intensely angry in my spirit, I asked in a loud voice, "If in regard to spiritual matters you view humans as pillars of salt, animals, and beings that are blind and insane, what then are your theological teachings? Surely they are spiritual, aren't they?"
After some silence they replied, "In our entire body of teaching there is absolutely nothing spiritual that reason can grasp. Our faith is the only spiritual thing in our theology, but we have sealed it off completely to keep anyone from looking into it; we have taken precautions to prevent even one spiritual ray from leaking out of it and appearing before our intellect. Furthermore, human beings do not contribute even a tiny amount to that faith as the result of their own free choice. We have also completely removed goodwill from the spiritual arena; we have turned it into something merely moral, just as we have done with the Ten Commandments. Nor would we say that justification, forgiveness of sins, regeneration, or salvation were at all spiritual. We say that faith produces those results, but we have no idea how. In place of repentance we have substituted penitence. To prevent people from thinking of this penitence as spiritual, we have moved it entirely out of the reach of faith. The only ideas we have adopted about redemption are purely earthly: they are that God the Father locked the human race into damnation, but his Son took that damnation upon himself and allowed himself to be hung on the cross. By so doing he induced his Father to feel pity. And besides these, there are many similar teachings in which you are supposed to perceive something that is merely earthly and not at all spiritual. "
[6] Still feeling the intense anger that had come upon me earlier, I continued the exchange. "If we had no free choice in regard to spiritual matters," I said, "what would we be but brute animals? Spiritual free choice is what distinguishes us from them. Without it, what is the church but a cleaner of clothes with a filthy face and blank, blind eyes? Without it, what is the Word but a volume entirely without meaning? What occurs more often in the Word than statements and commandments that we should love God and our neighbor and have faith? Or that our salvation and life depend on our level of love and faith? No one lacks the ability to understand and do the things that are prescribed in the Word and in the Ten Commandments. How could God order and command us to do such things if we had not been given the ability to do them?
[7] Find some farm hand, whose mind is not clogged with theological fallacies, and tell him he has no more ability to understand or will things related to faith, goodwill, and salvation than a log or a stone. Tell him that he is incapable of applying and adapting himself to those things. He is going to laugh so hard that his whole body shakes. He is going to say, 'What could be more insane than that? Why do I bother with the preacher and his sermons then? What is the difference in that case between the church building and a barn? How is worship any different from plowing? What a mindless thing to say! It is the height of foolishness. Nobody denies, of course, that everything good comes from God. But haven't we been granted the ability to do good things under our own initiative on God's behalf? And a similar ability to believe?'"
When the participants heard that, they yelled, "What we said was orthodox teaching, based on orthodox authorities. What you said was boorish and based on the authority of a farm hand!"
At that moment lightning suddenly crashed down from the heavens. To avoid being destroyed by it, they rushed out in a crowd and fled from there to their own homes.
503. At this point I shall add some accounts of experiences. The first experience.
I heard that a meeting had been called to discuss man's free will in spiritual matters - this was in the spiritual world. There were present from every quarter learned men, who had thought about the subject in the world in which they had previously lived, and many of them had been at councils and synods, both before and after that of Nicaea. They gathered in a sort of circular temple, like the one at Rome known as the Pantheon, which was formerly dedicated to the worship of all the gods, but subsequently consecrated by the papacy to the cult of all the holy martyrs. Around the walls of the temple were what looked like altars; but each had chairs drawn up to it, on which those who had gathered sat, and rested their elbows on the altars as if they were so many tables. No one had been appointed to preside over their meeting, but one by one, as the fancy took them, they broke ranks and coming into the centre gave vent to and made known their opinion. To my surprise, all the members of this assembly were full of arguments in favour of man's complete lack of power in spiritual matters, and they ridiculed the idea of free will in this respect.
[2] When they were assembled one man suddenly rushed into the centre and cried out in a loud voice: 'Man has no free will in spiritual matters, any more than Lot's wife had after she was turned into a pillar of salt. For most certainly, if man had any more freedom, he would of his own accord claim as his own the faith of our church. This is that God the Father in complete freedom and at His good pleasure confers that faith as a free gift on whomever He wishes, whenever He wishes. God would never have this good pleasure nor make this free gift, if by some sort of freedom or good pleasure man could also claim it for himself. For if this happened, our faith, a star which shines before our eyes night and day, would be scattered into the air like a shooting star.'
He was followed by another man who jumped up from his seat and said: 'Man has no more free will in spiritual matters than an animal, or rather, than a dog, because, if he had, he would do good of his own accord, whereas all good comes from God, and man cannot get anything for himself but what is given to him from heaven.'
[3] He was followed by another who leaped up from his seat and spoke from the centre. He said that man has no more free will in spiritual matters, or even in discerning these, than an owl has in daylight, or rather, than a chick has while it is still hidden in the egg. 'In such matters he is as blind as a mole; for if he was a veritable Lynceus 1 to discern what has to do with faith, salvation and everlasting life, he would believe that he could regenerate and save himself, and would actually attempt it, thus profaning his thoughts and deeds with seeking more and more merit.'
Yet another ran out into the centre and delivered this utterance, that anyone of the opinion that he can will or understand anything in spiritual matters since the fall of Adam is raving and becoming deranged, since he would then believe himself to be a tin god or supernatural being, possessing in his own right some portion of God's power.
[4] He was followed by a man who came panting into the centre, carrying under his arm a book, called the Formula of Concord; the Evangelicals at the present time swear by what he called its orthodoxy. He opened it and read out the following passage:
Man with regard to good is utterly corrupt and dead, so that there has remained and subsists in man's nature since the fall before regeneration not so much as a spark of spiritual strength, to enable him to be prepared for God's grace or to seize it when it is offered; or to be capable of receiving that grace of his own accord by his own efforts; or in spiritual matters to understand, believe, endorse, think, will, begin, complete, act, work, co-operate or apply or adapt himself to grace, or to make any contribution, to the extent of a half or even the smallest part, to his conversion. In spiritual matters relating to the salvation of the soul man is like the pillar of salt which was Lot's wife, resembling a block of wood or stone devoid of life, without the use of the eyes, the mouth or any senses. However he has the power of movement and the control of his external members, so as to attend public gatherings and hear the Word and the Gospel. (pp. 656, 658, 661-663, 671-673 in my edition.)
After this all expressed their agreement, crying out together: 'This is true orthodoxy.'
[5] I was standing close by and listening intently to all this, and since in my spirit I was incensed I asked in a loud voice: 'If you make man in spiritual matters a pillar of salt, an animal, blind and mad, what then becomes of your theology? Is not everything in theology a spiritual matter?'
After a period of silence they replied to this: 'The whole of our theology contains nothing spiritual apprehensible by reason. Our faith is the only item in it which is spiritual. But we have carefully shut up our faith to prevent anyone looking into it, and have taken precautions to ensure that no gleam of spirituality escapes from it so as to become visible to the understanding. Moreover man does not by any choice of his own contribute a whit to it. We have also removed charity from any spiritual idea, making it purely a moral matter, and we have treated the Ten Commandments likewise. Neither do we teach that there is anything spiritual about justification, the forgiveness of sins, regeneration and salvation by this means. We say that faith brings these about, but how we have no idea. In place of repentance we have adopted contrition, but to prevent it being thought to be spiritual we have removed it from all contact with faith. Neither have we adopted any but purely natural ideas about redemption. These are, that God the Father placed the human race under sentence of damnation, His Son took that sentence upon Himself, and allowed Himself to be hung upon the cross, thus compelling His Father to have mercy; and we have many more such ideas, in which you will not be able to detect anything spiritual, but only what is completely natural.'
[6] But, so incensed had I already become, I went on to say: 'If man had no free will in spiritual matters, what would he be but a beast? Surely this is what gives him his superiority over mere beasts? What would the church be without it, but the blackened face of a wall-eyed fuller? What would the Word be without it, but a blank book? Is there anything the Word says and commands more often than that man is to love God and to love the neighbour, and he is to believe that his salvation and life depend upon how he loves and believes? Is there anyone who is unable to understand and do what is laid down in the Word and in the Ten Commandments? How could God have prescribed and commanded man to do such things, if He had not given him the capability to do them?
[7] Tell any peasant, someone whose mind is not bogged down in fallacies about theology, that in what concerns faith and charity and the salvation they bring he can no more understand and will than a block of wood or a stone, not even being able to devote himself to or fit himself for them, surely he will roar with laughter and say: "How crazy can you get? What need have I then of a priest and his sermons? How is a church then any better than a stable? How then is worshipping any better than ploughing? What madness it is to talk like that, piling folly on folly. Does anyone deny that all good is from God? Surely man is permitted to do good of himself by God's guidance? And it is much the same with believing."'
On hearing this they all cried: 'We gave an orthodox view based on orthodox principles, you have given a peasant's view based on peasants' principles.' Then suddenly a thunderbolt fell from the sky, and they rushed out in droves for fear it would burn them up, and they all went away, each to his own home.
Footnotes:
1. In Greek mythology a man famous for his acute vision.
503. To the foregoing these Memorable Relations shall be added:
First:
I heard that an assembly was convoked, which was to deliberate on man's freedom of choice in spiritual things. This was in the spiritual world. There were present learned men from every quarter, who had thought upon that subject in the world in which they had formerly lived, also many who had been present at the greater and smaller councils both before and after that of Nice. They were assembled in a kind of circular temple like the temple at Rome called the Pantheon, which was formerly consecrated to the worship of all the gods, and afterward dedicated by the Papal chair to the worship of all the holy martyrs.
In this temple near the walls were what seemed to be altars, but near them were low benches, and upon these the assembly reclined, resting their elbows on the altars, as upon so many tables. No president was appointed to act as primate among them, but each one, when the desire seized him, rushed forth into their midst, poured out what he had at heart, and delivered his opinion; and what I wondered at, all who were in the assembly were full of proofs of man's utter impotence in spiritual things, and ridiculed the idea of freedom of choice in such matters.
[2] As soon as they had all come together one of them sprang up suddenly into the midst, and with a loud voice harangued them as follows: "Man has no more freedom of choice in spiritual things than Lot's wife had after she had been turned into a pillar of salt. If man had any more freedom of choice than that, he would surely of himself arrogate to himself the faith of our church, which faith is, that God the Father bestows faith gratuitously to whom He will and when He will, out of His entire freedom and good pleasure. This good pleasure and gratuitousness would be impossible to God, if man from any freedom or good pleasure could arrogate that faith to himself, and thus indeed, our faith, which is like a star shining before us night and day, would be dissipated like a meteor in the air."
[3] After him another sprang up from his bench and said, "Man has no more freedom of choice in spiritual things than a beast, or even a dog; for if he had, he would do good of himself, when yet all good is from God, and man can take to himself nothing that is not given him from heaven."
After him another sprang up from his seat into the middle space and raised his voice, saying, "Man has no more freedom of choice in spiritual things, not even in the discernment of them, than an owl has in the day time, or even a chicken still hidden in the shell; in these things he is as wholly blind as a mole; for if he were lynx-eyed in his clear perception of matters of faith, salvation, and eternal life, he would still believe that he could regenerate and save himself, and would endeavor to do so, and thus would profane his thoughts and deeds by adding merit to merit."
Again another ran out into the middle space and delivered this speech: "The man who imagines himself to be able, since Adam's fall, to will or understand anything spiritual is insane, and becomes a maniac, since he would then believe himself to be a little god or a kind of deity, possessing a share of the Divine power in his own right. "
[4] After him another rushed panting to the middle space carrying under his arm a book called the Formula Concordiae, by the orthodoxy of which, as he called it, the Evangelicals now swear. This he opened, and from it read the following: "Man is wholly corrupt and dead to good, so that in his nature since the fall, before regeneration, there does not remain or abide even a spark of spiritual power, whereby he is able to be prepared for the grace of God, or to apprehend it when offered, or from and by himself to be deceptive of it, or in spiritual things to understand, believe, embrace, think, will, begin, finish, act, operate, co-operate, or apply or adapt himself to receive grace, or to do anything of himself toward his conversion, either in the half or in the smallest part. And in spiritual things, which regard the salvation of the soul, man is like the pillar of salt into which Lot's wife was turned, or like a lifeless stock or stone, having no use of eyes, or mouth, or any of the senses. Nevertheless, he has the power of locomotion, or of directing his external members, to attend public meetings, and hear the Word and the Gospel." this is found in my edition, on pages 656, 658, 661-663, 671-673.
After this they all crowded together and together exclaimed, "This is true orthodoxy."
[5] I stood near and listened intently to all that had been said; and my spirit being aroused, I asked with a loud voice, "If you make man in spiritual things a pillar of salt, a beast, blind, and irrational, what is your theology? Is not each and all things of that spiritual?"
To this, after a period of silence, they replied: "In our whole theology there is nothing spiritual whatever that the reason comprehends. The only thing spiritual in it is our faith; but that we keep strictly closed up, that no one may look into it; and we have taken care that not a single ray of spirituality shall escape therefrom and appear before the understanding. Moreover, man does not contribute thereto the least particle from any choice of his own. Charity also we have removed from everything spiritual, and have made it merely moral; likewise the Decalogue. Respecting justification, the forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and salvation thereby, we teach nothing spiritual; we say that these are wrought by faith, but how, we are utterly ignorant. In place of repentance, we have put contrition, and lest this should be believed to be spiritual, we have removed it from faith, even as to any least touch. Respecting redemption we have adopted none but purely natural ideas, which are, that God the Father included the whole human race in a sentence of damnation, and that His Son took that damnation upon Him. Self, suffered Himself to be hanged upon a cross, and thus moved His Father to compassion; besides other like ideas, in which you will find nothing spiritual, but only what is natural. "
[6] But at this my former indignation continued, and I said, "If man had no freedom of choice in spiritual things, what would he be but a brute? Is it not by means of that that he is above brute beasts? Without that, what is the church but the black face of a fuller, with a white speck only in his eyes? Without it, what is the Word but an unmeaning volume? What is more frequently declared and commanded therein, than that man should love God and should love the neighbor, and should also believe; and again, that he has life and salvation in the measure of his love and faith? Is there any man who has not the ability to understand and do what is commanded in the Word and in the Decalogue? How could God have given such precepts and commandments to men without an ability to do them?
[7] Tell any rustic whose mind has not been blocked up by fallacies in theological matters, that he has no more ability to understand and will in matters of faith and charity, and of salvation therefrom, than a stock or a stone and no ability to adapt or conform himself to them; will he not most heartily laugh at you and say, 'What can be more irrational? What then have I to do with the priest and his preaching? What is a church more than a stable? And what is worship more than ploughing? What madness to speak so! It is folly upon folly. Who denies that all good is from God? Is it not given to man to do good of himself from God? It is the same with believing.'"
Hearing this they all cried out, "We spoke from orthodoxy in an orthodox way; but you from rustic notions in a rustic way."
Then suddenly lightning fell from heaven, and lest it should consume them, they rushed out in troops and fled away, each to his own home.
503. MEMORABILIA.
To the above will now be added the following Memorabilia.
The first experience. In the spiritual world I heard that a meeting was convened to deliberate on man's free will in spiritual things. There were present learned men from every quarter who had thought much on this subject in the world where they formerly lived, and who had been present at councils and assemblies before and since that of Nice. 1 They met in a kind of circular temple not unlike the Pantheon 2 at Rome, which had formerly been consecrated to the worship of all the gods, but was afterwards, by a Papal decree, dedicated to the worship of all the holy martyrs. Near the walls of this temple were what appeared to be altars; but at each were seats on which the members of the assembly sat, leaning with their elbows on the altars as on so many tables. No president was appointed to regulate their proceedings, but each as the desire prompted him rushed into the centre of the council, and, speaking without reserve, made known his opinion. I was surprised that all the members of the assembly were full of proofs of man's utter impotence in spiritual things; and thus they ridiculed the idea of free will in such matters.
[2] When all were assembled, a certain one suddenly stepped forth into the middle of the meeting, and in a loud voice delivered his opinion as follows: "A man has no more free will in spiritual things than Lot's wife had, after she was turned into a pillar of salt. For if he had any more free will than that, surely he would of himself adopt the faith of our Church, which teaches that God the Father gives faith, gratuitously of His own freedom and good pleasure, to whom He will and when He will. This good pleasure and free grace God would by no means have if man from any freedom or good pleasure could claim that gift for himself. Thus our faith, which is a star shining before us day and night, would be dissipated like a falling star in the air."
[3] After him another rushed from his seat and said: "A man has no more free will in spiritual things than a beast, yea, than a dog. For if he had, he would do good of himself, whereas all good is from God; and no one can take anything except it be given him from heaven." After him another started from his seat, and raising his voice in the midst of the assembly, said: "Man has no more free will in spiritual things, or even in discerning them, than an owl has sight in the daytime, or than a chicken has while it is yet concealed in the egg. In such matters he is as blind as a mole; and even if he clearly discerned the things that belong to faith, salvation and eternal life, he would believe that he could regenerate and save himself. This he would even attempt to do, and thus profane his own thoughts and deeds by continually ascribing merit to himself."
Then another rushed into the midst and delivered this opinion: "Whoever, since the fall of Adam, imagines he has the power to will and to understand anything in spiritual matters, is a raving madman; for he would then believe himself to be a little god or deity, sharing Divine power in his own right."
[4] He was followed by another who hurried panting into the centre, carrying under his arm a book called Formula Concordiae, 3 to whose orthodoxy, as he termed it, the present day Evangelicals 4 swear. He opened the book and read from it the following extracts:
"Man is altogether corrupt and dead to what is good; consequently, in the nature of man since the Fall, before regeneration, there does not remain a single spark of spiritual strength, whereby he may be prepared for the grace of God, either to apprehend it when offered, or of and by himself to be capable of receiving it; or in spiritual things to understand, believe, embrace, think, will, begin, finish, act, operate, co-operate, or apply or accommodate himself to grace, or of himself contribute anything in the least respect towards conversion. And further, a man, in respect to spiritual things, such as regard the salvation of the soul, is like the pillar of salt into which Lot's wife was changed, and like a stock or a stone without life, which has not the use of eyes, mouth, or any other senses. Yet still he enjoys the power of moving from place to place, that is, he can govern his external members, attend public worship and hear the Word and the Gospel." (These passages occur in my Edition, pp. 656, 658, 661-663, 671-673.) Thereupon they all expressed their agreement, and with one voice called out, "This is truly orthodox."
[5] As I stood by and heard all this with intense interest, my spirit burned within me, and in a loud voice I demanded, "If in spiritual things you make a man a pillar of salt, a beast, blind and insane, what then do you make your theology? Are not all its teachings, both in general and in particular, spiritual?" To this, after a short silence, they replied: "In our whole system of theology there is nothing spiritual which reason comprehends. The only thing that is spiritual in it is our faith; but this we have carefully closed up to prevent its being looked into; and we have taken special care that not a single spiritual ray shall proceed thence and appear to the understanding. Moreover, of his own will man contributes nothing to this faith. We have also separated charity from all things spiritual, and have made it merely moral; and we have done the same with the Decalogue. Further, we hold there is nothing spiritual in respect to justification, remission of sins, regeneration and consequent salvation, asserting that faith effects these works; but how this is done we do not know. In place of repentance we have adopted contrition, and lest it should be believed that this is of a spiritual nature, we have separated it from all connection with faith. Concerning redemption we have adopted no ideas save those that are purely natural, the chief of which are, that God the Father has included the whole race of mankind under the curse; that His Son took upon Himself that curse, and suffered Himself to be crucified, and so moved His Father to compassion; not to mention other similar doctrines, in which you will discover nothing spiritual, but only what is natural."
[6] Then speaking with the same ardor as before, I continued: "If a man had not free will in spiritual things, what would he be but a mere animal? For it is this which raises him above the brute beasts. Without it the Church would be like the dusky face of a fuller relieved only by the white of his eyes, and the Word would be but an empty book. In all that is recorded in the Word there is nothing more frequently enjoined than that a man should love God and the neighbor, and that he should believe; and also that he shall have salvation and life according to his love and belief. Now everyone has the capacity to understand and to do these precepts contained in the Word and in the Decalogue. How could God have prescribed and enjoined upon man these commandments unless He had given him this capacity?
[7] "Tell any rustic whose mind is untainted with theological fallacies that he has no more power than a stock or a stone to understand and to will anything in matters of faith and charity, and consequently salvation, and that he cannot even apply himself to them and fit himself to receive them. Will he not laugh heartily and say, 'What could be more absurd? In that case what have I to do with priest and preaching? What is a church to me more than a stable, or the worship of God than the handling of a plough?' What madness to speak so! It is folly upon folly. Everyone knows that all good comes from God; but God has granted to man the power to do good of himself, and also to believe."
On hearing this they all exclaimed: "We, whose instructors were orthodox, have delivered orthodox opinions; but you from your rustic instruction have spoken like a rustic." Thereupon a thunderbolt suddenly crashed from the sky, and to escape destruction they rushed out in a body and fled from the place, each to his own home.
Footnotes:
1. Nice (Nicaea), city of Asia Minor, in Bithynia. In A.D. 325 it was the seat of a Council summoned to settle the Arian controversy. The creed there adopted is known as the Nicene Creed.
2. Pantheon, great temple of Jupiter at Rome.
3. Form of Concord, Formula Concordiae, designed to effect an amicable adjustment of the differences among the Lutherans, by drawing them more closely to their principal standard, the Augsburg or Augustan Confession. Most of the Lutheran Churches add this Formula to their standard creeds.
4. Evangelicals, Low Church Protestants who profess evangelical principles, especially the doctrine that salvation is by faith in the Atonement.
503. His adjicientur haec MEMORABILIA; PRIMUM: Audivi quod indictum sit Comitium, in quo deliberaturi 1 essent de Libero Arbitrio hominis in spiritualibus; hoc fuit in Mundo spirituali; aderant ex omni plaga docti, qui in Mundo, in quo prius vixerunt, de illo cogitaverant, ac multi ex illis, qui in Consiliis et Conciliabulis tam ante Nicaenum, quam post illud fuerant; congregati sunt in quodam Templo rotundo simili Templo Romae, quod vocatur Pantheon, quod prius fuerat consecratum Cultui omnium deorum, et postea inauguratum Cultui omnium Sanctorum Martyrum a Solio Papali; in hoc Templo ad parietes etiam erant sicut Altaria, sed ad quodlibet subsellia, super quae congregati se reposuerunt, ac cubitis innitebantur altaribus sicut totidem mensis; non erat designatus aliquis Praeses, qui ageret Primatem apud illos, sed singuli, cum lubitus illos afflavit, eruperunt in medium, et ex pectore effuderunt et evulgarunt suum sancitum; et quod miratus sum, omnes, qui in illo Comitio erant, pleni erant confirmationibus pro plenaria hominis impotentia in spiritualibus, ita subsannatores Liberi Arbitrii in illis.
[2] Quando congregati sunt, en subito erupit unus in medium, et alta voce exspiravit hoc; non est aliquod Liberum Arbitrium homini in spiritualibus, plus quam fuit uxori Lothi, postquam conversa est in statuam salis, si enim homini foret liberum arbitrium plus, sane ex se sibi vindicaret fidem Ecclesiae nostrae, quae est, quod Deus Pater illam gratis ex toto Libero et Beneplacito det cui vult et quando vult; hoc beneplacitum et illud gratuitum nullatenus foret Deo, si homo ex quodam libero aut beneplacito illam sibi quoque posset vindicare, sic etenim Fides nostra, quae est Sidus lucens coram nobis diu et noctu, dissiparetur sicut stella caduca in aerem.
[3] Post hunc alius ex suo subsellio erupit, et dixit, non est homini plus Liberi arbitrii in spiritualibus quam est bestiae, imo cani; quoniam si id foret homini, faceret bonum a seipso, cum tamen omne bonum est a Deo, et homo nihil sibi sumere potest quod non datum sit e Coelo. Post hunc exsiluit unus e solio suo, et in medio extulit vocem, dicens, quod homini non plus liberi arbitrii sit in spiritualibus, etiam in perspiciendis illis, quam est Noctuae in die, imo quam est pullo adhuc latenti in ovo, est omnino in illis caecus sicut talpa, nam si foret lynceus in perspiciendo illa, quae fidei, salutis et vitae aeternae sunt, credidisset quod ipse semet posset regenerare et salvare, et quoque conaretur id, et sic cogitata et facta sua meritis et meritis profanaret. Iterum alius excurrit in medium, ac edidit hoc effatum, quod qui opinatur, se posse velle ac intelligere aliquid in spiritualibus post lapsum Adami, insaniat et fiat maniacus, quoniam tunc crederet se deastrum aut numen, possidentem partem potentiae Divinae in suo jure.
[4] Post hunc anhelavit alter in medium, portans sub ulna Librum, in cujus orthodoxiam, ut illam vocavit, Evangelici hodie jurant, FORMULA CONCORDIAE, vocatum, et aperuit illum, et inde legit sequentia, Quod homo ad bonum prorsus corruptus et mortuus sit, ita ut in hominis natura post lapsum ante regenerationem ne scintilla quidem spiritualium virium manserit aut restet, quibus ille ad gratiam Dei praeparari, aut oblatam apprehendere, aut ejus gratiae ex se et per se capax esse, aut in spiritualibus, intelligere, credere, amplecti, cogitare, velle, inchoare, perficere, agere, operari, cooperari, aut se ad gratiam applicare aut accommodare, aut aliquid ad conversionem, vel ex dimidia, vel ex minima parte ex se potest. Quodque homo in spiritualibus, quae ad animae salutem spectant, sit instar statuae salis uxoris Lothi, ac similis trunco aut lapidi vita carenti, quae non oculorum, oris, aut ullorum sensuum usum habent. Quod usque loco motivam potentiam habeat, seu externa membra regere, ad Caetus publicos accedere, ac Verbum et Evangelium audire possit. (Haec in mea Editione, p. 656, 658, 661-663, 671-673, leguntur). Post haec concurrerunt omnes, et simul exclamabant, hoc est vere orthodoxum.
[5] Ego adstiti, et illa omnia intense audivi, et quia spiritu meo excandui, alta voce sciscitavi, si in spiritualibus facitis hominem statuam salis, bestiam, caecum, et insanum, quid tunc Theologica vestra, suntne omnia et singula illa spiritualia; ad hoc post aliquod silentium respondebant; in Universa nostra Theologia nihil quicquam est spirituale, quod ratio capit; Fides nostra ibi unice est spiritualis; sed hanc probe occlusimus, ne quis introspiciat, et praecavimus ne aliquis radius spiritualis inde effluat, et coram intellectu appareat, et insuper homo ad illam ne particulam ex aliquo suo arbitrio confert: Charitatem etiam ab omni spirituali removimus, et fecimus illam mere moralem, similiter Decalogum: de justificatione, remissione peccatorum, regeneratione, et inde salvatione, nec aliquid spirituale tradimus; dicimus quod Fides operetur illas, sed quomodo, prorsus non scimus; loco poenitentiae sumsimus contritionem, quae ne credatur spiritualis, removimus illam a fide quoad omnem tactum: de Redemptione nec adoptavimus nisi ideas pure naturales, quae sunt, quod Deus Pater Genus humanum concluserit sub damnatione, et quod Filius Ipsius damnationem illam in se susceperit, et passus se cruce suspendi, et quod sic Patrem suum ad miserationem adegerit, praeter similia plura, in quibus non deprehendes quicquam spirituale, sed merum naturale.
[6] Sed tunc in excandescentia prius concepta continuavi dicendo, si homini non foret liberum arbitrium in spiritualibus, quid tunc foret homo nisi brutum; eminetne homo per illud super brutis bestiis; quid Ecclesia absque illo nisi facies fullonis atra, in cujus oculis est gutta alba; quid Verbum absque illo nisi codex inanis; quid frequentius ibi dicitur 2 et mandatur, quam quod homo amaturus sit Deum, et quod amaturus sit proximum, et quoque quod crediturus sit, tum quod salus et vita ei sit, quemadmodum amat et credit; quis est cui non est facultas intelligendi et faciendi illa, quae praecepta sunt in Verbo, et quae in Decalogo; quomodo potuisset Deus talia homini praescribere et mandare, nisi ei data esset facultas.
[7] Dic alicui rustico, apud quem Mens per fallacias in Theologicis non praestructa est, quod ne hilum plus quam 3 truncus et lapis, possit intelligere et velle in rebus fidei et charitatis, et inde salutis, et ne quidem ad illa se applicare et accommodare, annon tunc ille toto pectore risurus esset, et dicturus, quid insanius; quid mihi tunc cum Sacerdote et ejus praedicatione; quid tunc Templum plus quam stabulum, et quid tunc Cultus plus quam aratio; oh quae dementia ita loqui, est fatuitas supra fatuitatem; quis negat quod omne bonum sit a Deo; nonne homini datum est facere bonum ex se a Deo; simile est credere. His auditis, clamaverunt omnes, nos loquuti sumus ex orthodoxis orthodoxe, tu autem ex rusticis rustice: at subito tunc fulmen illapsum est e coelo, quod ne consumeret illos, turmatim eruperunt, et fugerunt inde, quisque ad suam domum.
Footnotes: