Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

mitted him to adopt and inculcate many erroneous views. As a proof of his unacquaintance with these subjects we merely refer to the contradictory remarks, hasty assertions, doctrines maintained, modified and again denied, with which his works abound, and which are mentioned by almost all who write of him or his acquirements. Luther who was intimately acquainted with his writings, adopted at an early period some of his views. Before 'his ideas were perfectly matured, before he had formed the plan, which he afterwards followed, or before he knew how wide and irreconcileable the schism which he occasioned in the Catholic church, would be, or how much depended on him, he had engaged in a controversy with Erasmus concerning free will ; and like St. Augustine, becoming irritated as the controversy proceeded, venerating his teacher St. Augustine, and not yet having those clear views which he afterwards expressed, he, in some degree, appeared to advocate Augustinianism, but without using or approving of the harsh expressions of the Predestinarians.* How tenaciously did the apostles cling to their fond notions of a temporal Messiah.. How long was it before they would comprehend the words of Christ Though he gave them so many opportunities to correct these views, and so often told them to expect no temporal adyantages from him, they still would believe that he was to restore the Jewish commonwealth. If they, who enjoyed a personal intercourse with Christ, still retained for a season the hopes and feelings of their youth is it surprising that Luther for å season did not banish those impressions from his mind which he had received in early youth? Do we not lay great stress on the argument, that if the deciples, who were Jews, attached to the Mosaic law, expected it to be a permanent institution and had no idea of a change-if they relinquished all these opinions without the hope of gain, it must have been the force of truth which changed their views ? Now if Luther, after having been educated as a Catholic, aster having imbibed at an early period, from St. Augustine, those ideas concerning Predestination &c. with which his memory is still reproached (unjustly and falsely in reality) is it not a triumphant proof, on our part, of the falsity of Catholic and Augustinian or Calvinistic views, if he afterwards effaced the impressions of his youth, banished these opinions which he had hitherto cherished, and adopted views altogether opposed to his former system of faith, and this with the prospect of calumny, danger, and perhaps death ? Is it not another proof that truth is powerful and will and must prevail ?

J. G. Walch says in his Introd. in Lib. Luth. Symb. p. 318, that the Reformed took advantage of some expressions in Luther's work. De Servo Arbitrio, and maintained that he taught Predestination. The apparent error of Luther was however explained in P., Haberkon's “Necessarii et solida vindicatio libri Lutheri de Servo arbitrio"--and in various other writings, the remarks also,

*Augustin, Dogmengeschichte $285.

mans.

p. 877, that Luther's views of this doctrine were altogether in oppositiop to those of the Reformed, if we are to believe his own writings. This is fully proved by Rambach in a little work, entitled "des seeligen Mannes Gottes Martini Lutheri wahre Meynung &c.” It would occupy too much space to make a full quotation from Walch. The witnesses of the Predestinarians, I think, are the following : (1.) The commentary on the epistle to the Ro

This was written 1514 A. D. three years before Luther commenced the Reformation (See Introd Hist. prefixed to C. M. Pfaff's edition of the Symbolical Books.) (2.) The commentary on the ep. to the Galatians. This was written 1516 A. N. Both these works, written before Luther commenced the Reformation, and while, he entertained his former Catholic and Augustinian views, incline apparently to Predestinarianism. However they are not to be adduced as arguments, any more than we would reproach one of the Evangelists for having, when he first began to follow his Master, still expected a temporal Messiah. Luther wrote under an influence which time, greater acquaintance with the Scriptures, more reflection, his own good sense, and the grace of God happily removed. (3.) Liber de Servo Arbitrio. This book, on which Predestinarians misled by certain expressions, principally rest their charge, was written (Seckendorf col. 720) in the year 1525, more than twenty years before Luthers death, which occurred in 1546. It was republished in 1664 by Sebastian Schmid, the celebrated Latin Translator of the Bible, and accompanied by annotations, in which he successfully indicated Luther's memory against the aspersions of those who attributed to him a , belief in an unconditional decree.* We are, to consider, besides, that as he strongly opposed to the Pelagian views of man's remaining strength, and as he treated the subject philosophically, as Erasmus had done, many of his expressions were either stronger than he would, at another time, have used, or were liable to misapprehension, from the fact that language is too defective to express every shade of meaning in such an abstract subject.

We say then, that Luther many years before his death, appeared to incline to some of those views which belong to the Calvinistic scheme, just as he had previously believed Catholic doctrines. But, in the course of time, as he devoted more intense study to the scriptures, and as the dawn changed into full sun-shine, as divine light and truth gradually arose in his soul, all those vapours

*It was again published in 1707 by J. J. Zentgraf, together with the annotations of Schmid, and an apologelical preface (Seckend. col. 721. Walch p. 319.) Augusti also mentions a work or dis sertation by Trellund published in 1717 and entitled “De Luthero doctrinae absoluti decreti suspicione multis et manifestis testimoniis absoluto.” In these works, which deserve to be transla ted and republished here, there is no doubt sufficient testimony to convince our skeptical contemporaries thạt Luther gave no credence to the doctrine of Predestination.

was

could prove

and mists, both of Catholicism and Augustinianism vanished gradually but totally from his mind; and he finally renounced and most solemnly disclaimed all his former erroneous ideas. In all his subsequent writings to the day of his death, he taught doctrines decidedly opposed to Predestination. · Hence nothing of this doctrine appears in any of our Symbolical books; it is, of course, not taught in the Augsburg Confession,

and is most strongly reprobated and indignantly rejected in the Formula Concordioa. But would Luther have omitted it in the Augsburg Confession, if he had in the most remote degree believed it to be true? Why does he write, preach and teach doctrines that strike at the very root of Predesti. nation, why give not, in his latter years, when the whole Protestant world received his decisions as oracles, even the least hint that he believed Predestination ? It is folly, to make the assertion-it bears contradiction on its own front. When therefore it is said, that Luther was a Predestinarian, it may appear to be partially true, as applied to his earlier years, it is false, althogether false, as applied to the last years of his life, when his mind was fully illuminated. If then any still persist in calling him a Predestinarian, without considering all those circumstances, it would be quite as dignified, quite as candid, if you

would

say
that

you to the satisfaction of all who would apply to you, that Luther was a Catholic and St. Paul a Jew.

Before I conclude, I have one more remark to make, occasioned by the same article in your last number. It is very much the fashion among our own members, as well as many of those of other denominations, to call the Lutherans, Arminians. But why not as well call us Catholics, Methodists, Hopkinsians, Jews or any thing else ? Each denomination has some one doctrine at least, in common with us. By way of an example, the last new sect is called, I think, the “Hicksite.” They believe in a future world so do we. But it would be folly to name us therefore “I cksites."

*Dr. Endress, in his essays published in your Intelligencer, has quoted passages which might convince any candid person that Luther gave no countenance to the doctrine. He must indeed have otherwise been a most inconsistent wavering weak man.

In Walch's edition of his “Kirchen Postill” p. 701 he proposes the question (in a discourse published 1540, six years before his death.) “Who knows whether I am elected” and shows the folly of such doubts, by demonstrating that all are elected, that all human beings are included in the number of those for whom Christ died, and that all can, if they will, participate in the benefits of Christs death. He then adds—Beware that you do not exclude yourself—do not thus give the lie to the word of God.” Now according to the Calvinistic plan, which Luther is said but never proved to have adopted, some are already excluded; but how will we reconcile this with Luther's earnest appeals ? A countless number of expressions, scattered through his later works, prove that he abhorred the doctrine.

Arminius, from whom the party has its name, did not renounce bis Calvinistic tenets and openly advocate Lutheran view's till the yeas 1591, which was long, after the Lutheran church bad received a definite form and inculcated the same doctrines which are now designated as Arminian. We are very far from admitting all the doctrines of Arminius—why then, if he received some of our doctrines, taught by our church long before he appeared in public as their advocate, should we adopt his name? For the sake of convenience it may be proper to designate us, and Episcopalians by the term Arminian, implying that we reject predestination &c. Still our own name, and that of the Episcopal church should speak for themselves, particularly since it may occasion a misunderstanding in many, and lead to the belief that we sanction all the views of Arminius, we adopt his name.

I have written these remarks as they suggested themselves to me, when I read the article in your last number p. 153. I have given but few references or quotations, but they are at hand to prove any of the above assertions. If you think these remarks worthy of insertion in your next number, you will oblige

LUTHERANUS.

THE NEW CATECHISM.

MR. EDITOR.– read with much interest the observations of Clericus and Beta, upon the subject of a new Catechism, and do most cordially agree with both, so far, that Luther's smaller catechism, is not as perfect as it might be. I know that in Germany, the Lutheran church has not been confined to the entire use of our small catechism, but a number of others of the same spirit and doctrine which characterize it, with additional interrogatories and answers have been published, so as to remove deficiencies, mer tioned by Beta.

A number of these catechisms, I have read with pleasure, but upon mature deliberation, I have come to the conclusion, that the catechism now in use answers every purpose. For, if deficiencies are noticed by any Pastor, when expounding the Catechism and preparing persons for confirmation, let him fiū up. It will be to his benefit and if he has knowledge and grace, deeper impressions will be made upon the minds of those whom he instructs, than, if they merely repeat answers to certain interrogatories, found in the book and formally read by the Pastor.

A more extensive catechism would however be useful to advance Christians in knowledge and piety, and certainly, if a new catechism be called for to supplant the one now in use, the minds. of our young people would be directed accordingly, to receive one as proposed by Clericus. I am of opinion, from my knowledge of the Church and her present situation in the United States, that the catechism now in use, cannot be laid aside for half a century to come. Indeed an earlier attempt, would produce serious consequences, which Beta and Clericus would regret to witness, and certainly could not easily remove.

P. V. W.

THE PROTESTANT.

و

We have heretofore recommended the “Protestant” to the pa: tronage of all who are interested for Protestantism, as it is exclu. sively devoted to the exposure of Popish errors, and display of Protestant truths. That its Editor, is not merely seeking his own, but, the promotion of the Truth, at personal inconvenience and hazard, will appear from the following extract from the Protestant of July 10th.' From what cause, this paragraph has not been no. ticed by many Editors, we cannot say, but it is our duty, to give our readers information of what is doing. We believe the challenge has been offered.in vain, as we anticipated, for the weapons selected by the Editor of the Protestant, cannot be handled with any advantage, by his opponents

. Luther with these weapons, met hundreds at Worms, and, either took them prisoners or put them to flight.-Editor.

As we have, says the Editor of the Protestant, a decided objection to Maryland Roman priests having all the talk about the contents of the Protestant-we hereby offer to meet the Frederick Jesuit; and any other of his craft, whom the Most Arch and the Grand Inquisitor may appoint, in Frederick Maryland,, on the znorning of Monday, August 16th, to hold a public debate at any convenient place, upon any part of the contents of the Protestant, which the Pope's Legate may select-which shall be continued for four or.

five days, at their option ; upon those conditions and under those regulations which may be agreed upon between the Editor of the Intelligencer for the Protestant-and the Frederick Jesuit and . his coadjutors. Provided only that the priest shall designate the subjects of debate, prior to the first day of August. We dare the Frederick Jesuit or any of his fraudful order thus to meet us, with no other weapons than fact, literature, reason, and the Bible,

BACK AGAIN.-Dr. Shubert one of the courtiers of the Duke of Anhalt Coethen, who three years ago, joined the Romish church, no doubt with a view to obtain particular favours from the apostate Duke, found so many doctrines of human inventions, and repugnant to the Bible, in his new church, that he became most miserable. All efforts to sear his conscience were fruitless. On

« AnteriorContinuar »