503.在此，我将补充几个记事。记事一：
我听说正在召集一个会议，讨论人在属灵事物上的选择自由，这事发生在灵界。参会的有各地的现代学者，他们在世时曾思索过这个主题，还有很多尼西亚会议前后出席过大大小小议会的人。他们聚集在一座类似罗马万神殿的圆形圣殿中，万神殿先前专门用来敬拜诸神，后来又被教皇专门用于供奉所有殉道者的圣骸。在圣殿里面，有看似祭坛的东西环绕墙壁，而祭坛旁边摆着矮长凳，参会者倚靠在长凳上，双肘支在坛上，好像支在桌子上一样。虽然没有指定他们当中某个人主持会议，但每个人受欲望驱使，都冲到中间，倾诉心中所想，发表各自观点。令我惊奇的是，所有参会者都充分证明人在属灵事物上没有选择自由，并对人在这类事上拥有选择自由的观念加以嘲笑。
集合一完毕，其中一人就突然跳到中间，慷慨陈词说：“人在属灵事物上没有任何选择自由，就跟化成盐柱的罗得之妻一样。若在这方面有任何自由，那他无疑将我们教会的信据为己有，这信就是，父神会在祂乐意时将信白白赐给祂属意之人，这完全凭祂的自由和美意。如果人出于自由或美意将这信据为己有，那么神的美意和恩赐将是不可能的。事实上，那在我们面前日夜闪耀如星辰的信就会象天上的流星一样消失。”
然后，另一人从凳子上跳起，说：“人在属灵事物上和动物，甚或一条狗一样没有任何选择自由；因为若他有，他会凭自己行善，然而一切善皆出于神，若不是从天上赐的，人就不能得什么。”接着，又一人也从座位上跳起，走到中间，提高嗓门说：“人在属灵事物、甚至对它们的洞察方面没有选择自由，就像白天的猫头鹰，或尚在蛋壳中的小鸡没有自由一样。在这些事上，他和鼹鼠一样全然盲目；因为如果他眼光锐利，对信、得救及永生的事有清楚的觉察，那么就会以为他能使自己重生和得救，甚至试图这样做，从而通过累加功德而玷污自己的思想和行为。”之后，又有一位冲到中间，作了如下发言：“由于亚当堕落了，所以凡认为自己能意愿或觉知属灵事物者，都是极其愚蠢的，并变成了疯子，因为此时他会视自己为小神或某类神，以为靠自己有了神的部分能力。”
在他之后的又一人气喘吁吁地跑到中间，胳膊下夹着一本书，名为《协和信条》；如他所说，这本书被当今福音派奉为正统。他打开这本书，从中读了以下内容：“就良善而言，人已全然败坏和死亡，以致于在堕落之后、重生之前，人性中没有存留一丝灵性力量，使他借以为神的恩典预备自己；或在赐予恩典时能把握住，通过并靠着自己接受它。人在属灵事物上也无法领悟、相信、信奉、思考、意愿、着手、完成、行动、运作、配合、使自己适应接受恩典，或凭自己促使信仰转变，人起不到半点，甚至丝毫的作用。在关乎灵魂得救的属灵事上，人就象罗得之妻化成的盐柱，或无生命的木石，眼睛、嘴巴都不管用，浑然无觉。
然而，人还是有运动或者支配外在肢体的能力，也能参加公开聚会，聆听圣言和福音。（在我的版本pp. 656，658，661－663，671－673）“读完后，全场一致欢呼，同声叫喊：“这是真正的正统信仰啊！”
我站在旁边专心听了他们所有的发言，我的灵被激动，便大声问道：“如果你们使人在属灵事物上成为一根盐柱，一个动物，盲目而又无理性，那么你们还要神学干什么？它的每一及一切事物不都是属灵的吗？”一阵沉默过后，他们对此回应说：“我们整个神学没有丝毫被理智领会的属灵成分。其中唯一属灵的就是我们的信；但我们把它严格封闭起来，无人可以探究它；我们还严防死守，不让一丝灵性之光从中泄露，从而呈现在觉知面前。而且，人凭自己的选择对此信无丁点贡献。
我们也将仁从一切属灵事物中除出去，视之为纯粹道德的事，十诫也是一样。在称义、赦罪、重生、从而得救方面，我们也不教导任何属灵的东西。我们认为，这些东西由信产生，但至于如何产生，我们一无所知。我们用悔罪一词取代悔改，并且为免这悔罪被认为是属灵的，我们把它从信那里铲除净尽，甚至一丝痕迹未留。关于救赎，我们只接受纯粹属世的观念，即父神将整个人类置于诅咒的宣判下，祂的儿子担起这个诅咒，本我（Self）让自己遭受十字架的苦难，从而使祂的父心生怜悯；还有其它类似观念，其中你找不到任何属灵的东西，全都是属世的。“
听到这里，我早已怒不可遏，说：“如果人在属灵事物上没有选择自由，不就成了野兽吗？难道不正是由于这选择自由，人才胜过野兽吗？若无它，圣言岂不成了索然无味的经卷吗？人当爱神爱邻，也要信靠祂，同样人根据自己爱和信的程度拥有生命和救赎，在圣言中，所声明和命令的事还有比这些更多的吗？有谁不能理解和行出圣言与诫命吩咐的事呢？神怎会将人没有能力遵行的诫命颁布给他们呢？
跟一个脑袋还没被神学谬论阻塞的乡野村夫说，在信与仁，以及由此而来的得救等事上，人跟木石一样没有觉知和意愿的能力，也没有能力使自己适应或顺从它们；难道他不会由衷嘲笑你们说：‘还有比这更荒谬的吗？对这牧师和他的讲道，让我说什么好呢？教会岂不成了马厩？敬拜又比耕作好到哪里去？多么疯狂的说法！真是蠢上加蠢。谁会否认一切善来自神？通过神出于自己行善不是被赋予人了吗？信也是如此。’”听到这番话，他们全都叫嚷起来：“我们本着正统作正统发言，而你却站在粗俗的立场作粗俗地解释。”这时，突然一道闪电从天而降，他们蜂拥而出，各自逃回家中。
503. 在此, 我将补充几个记事。 记事一:
我听说正在召集一个会议, 讨论人在属灵事物上的选择自由, 这事发生在灵界。 参会的有各地的现代学者, 他们在世时曾思索过这个主题, 还有很多尼西亚会议前后出席过大大小小议会的人。 他们聚集在一座类似罗马万神殿的圆形圣殿中, 万神殿先前专门用来敬拜诸神, 后来又被教皇专门用于供奉所有殉道者的圣骸。 在圣殿里面, 有看似祭坛的东西环绕墙壁, 而祭坛旁边摆着矮长凳, 参会者倚靠在长凳上, 双肘支在坛上, 好像支在桌子上一样。 虽然没有指定他们当中某个人主持会议, 但每个人受欲望驱使, 都冲到中间, 倾诉心中所想, 发表各自观点。 令我惊奇的是, 所有参会者都充分证明人在属灵事物上没有选择自由, 并对人在这类事上拥有选择自由的观念加以嘲笑。
集合一完毕, 其中一人就突然跳到中间, 慷慨陈词说: “人在属灵事物上没有任何选择自由, 就跟化成盐柱的罗得之妻一样。 若在这方面有任何自由, 那他无疑将我们教会的信据为己有, 这信就是, 父神会在祂乐意时将信白白赐给祂属意之人, 这完全凭祂的自由和美意。 如果人出于自由或美意将这信据为己有, 那么神的美意和恩赐将是不可能的。 事实上, 那在我们面前日夜闪耀如星辰的信就会象天上的流星一样消失。 ”
然后, 另一人从凳子上跳起, 说: “人在属灵事物上和动物, 甚或一条狗一样没有任何选择自由; 因为若他有, 他会凭自己行善, 然而一切善皆出于神, 若不是从天上赐的, 人就不能得什么。 ”接着, 又一人也从座位上跳起, 走到中间, 提高嗓门说: “人在属灵事物, 甚至对它们的洞察方面没有选择自由, 就像白天的猫头鹰, 或尚在蛋壳中的小鸡没有自由一样。 在这些事上, 他和鼹鼠一样全然盲目; 因为如果他眼光锐利, 对信, 得救及永生的事有清楚的觉察, 那么就会以为他能使自己重生和得救, 甚至试图这样做, 从而通过累加功德而玷污自己的思想和行为。 ”之后, 又有一位冲到中间, 作了如下发言: “由于亚当堕落了, 所以凡认为自己能意愿或觉知属灵事物者, 都是极其愚蠢的, 并变成了疯子, 因为此时他会视自己为小神或某类神, 以为靠自己有了神的部分能力。 ”
在他之后的又一人气喘吁吁地跑到中间, 胳膊下夹着一本书, 名为《协和信条》; 如他所说, 这本书被当今福音派奉为正统。 他打开这本书, 从中读了以下内容: “就良善而言, 人已全然败坏和死亡, 以致于在堕落之后, 重生之前, 人性中没有存留一丝灵性力量, 使他借以为神的恩典预备自己; 或在赐予恩典时能把握住, 通过并靠着自己接受它。 人在属灵事物上也无法领悟, 相信, 信奉, 思考, 意愿, 着手, 完成, 行动, 运作, 配合, 使自己适应接受恩典, 或凭自己促使信仰转变, 人起不到半点, 甚至丝毫的作用。 在关乎灵魂得救的属灵事上, 人就象罗得之妻化成的盐柱, 或无生命的木石, 眼睛, 嘴巴都不管用, 浑然无觉。
然而, 人还是有运动或者支配外在肢体的能力, 也能参加公开聚会, 聆听圣言和福音。 (在我的版本pp。 656, 658, 661-663, 671-673) “读完后, 全场一致欢呼, 同声叫喊: “这是真正的正统信仰啊! ”
我站在旁边专心听了他们所有的发言, 我的灵被激动, 便大声问道: “如果你们使人在属灵事物上成为一根盐柱, 一个动物, 盲目而又无理性, 那么你们还要神学干什么? 它的每一及一切事物不都是属灵的吗? ”一阵沉默过后, 他们对此回应说: “我们整个神学没有丝毫被理智领会的属灵成分。 其中唯一属灵的就是我们的信; 但我们把它严格封闭起来, 无人可以探究它; 我们还严防死守, 不让一丝灵性之光从中泄露, 从而呈现在觉知面前。 而且, 人凭自己的选择对此信无丁点贡献。
我们也将仁从一切属灵事物中除出去, 视之为纯粹道德的事, 十诫也是一样。 在称义, 赦罪, 重生, 从而得救方面, 我们也不教导任何属灵的东西。 我们认为, 这些东西由信产生, 但至于如何产生, 我们一无所知。 我们用悔罪一词取代悔改, 并且为免这悔罪被认为是属灵的, 我们把它从信那里铲除净尽, 甚至一丝痕迹未留。 关于救赎, 我们只接受纯粹属世的观念, 即父神将整个人类置于诅咒的宣判下, 祂的儿子担起这个诅咒, 本我 (Self) 让自己遭受十字架的苦难, 从而使祂的父心生怜悯; 还有其它类似观念, 其中你找不到任何属灵的东西, 全都是属世的。 “
听到这里, 我早已怒不可遏, 说: “如果人在属灵事物上没有选择自由, 不就成了野兽吗? 难道不正是由于这选择自由, 人才胜过野兽吗? 若无它, 圣言岂不成了索然无味的经卷吗? 人当爱神爱邻, 也要信靠祂, 同样人根据自己爱和信的程度拥有生命和救赎, 在圣言中, 所声明和命令的事还有比这些更多的吗? 有谁不能理解和行出圣言与诫命吩咐的事呢? 神怎会将人没有能力遵行的诫命颁布给他们呢?
跟一个脑袋还没被神学谬论阻塞的乡野村夫说, 在信与仁, 以及由此而来的得救等事上, 人跟木石一样没有觉知和意愿的能力, 也没有能力使自己适应或顺从它们; 难道他不会由衷嘲笑你们说: ‘还有比这更荒谬的吗? 对这牧师和他的讲道, 让我说什么好呢? 教会岂不成了马厩? 敬拜又比耕作好到哪里去? 多么疯狂的说法! 真是蠢上加蠢。 谁会否认一切善来自神? 通过神出于自己行善不是被赋予人了吗? 信也是如此。 ’”听到这番话, 他们全都叫嚷起来: “我们本着正统作正统发言, 而你却站在粗俗的立场作粗俗地解释。 ”这时, 突然一道闪电从天而降, 他们蜂拥而出, 各自逃回家中。
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: