Page images
PDF
EPUB

asserted by him *, when after citing some passages in Isaiah, as, I um God, and before me there is no Saviour, &c. he says, "Neither diversely, nor haughtily, nor in a boasting manner, does he say these things, but because impossibile erat sine Deo discere Deum, it was impossible to learn the knowledge of God without him,' he teaches men by his Logos, or Word, to know God." And elsewhere he observes †, the bondage state of man by nature, and that immortality and eternal glory are not of himself, but are the pure free gift of God; "Man," says he, "who was before led captive, is taken out of the power of the possessor, according to the mercy of God the Father," who has pity on his own work, "and restoring it, gives salvation to it by the Word; that is, by Christ; that man may experimentally learn that non a semeteipso, sed donatione Dei accepit incorruptelam, not of himself, but by the gift of God, he receives immortality." It is true indeed that Irenæus frequently makes mention of man's free will, and says, that God made him free from the beginning; that all have a power to do good, or not; and, that God still preserves the will of man free, not only in works, but even in believing; which passages are produced by Dr. Whitby §, and others, and may be reconciled to what Irenæus elsewhere asserts, by observing, that in some of them he speaks of free will as man was possessed of it when first created; and in others of the natural liberty of the will, which, in all actions good and bad, is preserved free; and in none does it appear more so than in spiritual actions, and even in believing, in which men are influenced and assisted by the grace of God. Besides, it is one thing to say, that man has a free will to do spiritual actions, to believe, and the like, from the strength of grace given by God; and another thing to say that man has a free will and power to do that which is good, and to believe from the mere strength of nature; the former we allow of, the latter we deny, and which can never be proved to be Irenæus's meaning, for that would be to contradict himself.

SECTION VI.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. A. D. 190.

CLEMENT of Alexandria, being inclined to the stoic philosophy, it is no wonder that he sometimes speaks of || ra e' nur, "the things that are in our power," and says what seems to favour man's free will; which passages of his are for this purpose referred to by Dr. Whitby¶; though it is plain in some places he only speaks of the natural liberty of the will against the Basilidians, and of the power of man to perform the natural and civil actions of life; however, certain it is, that Clement did not hold free will in such a sense, as to set aside the + Ibid. 1. 5, c. 21, p. 469.

* Adv. Hæres. 1. 4, c. 18, p. 327.

Ibid. 1. 4, c. 9, p. 326; c. 29, p. 349; c. 71, p. 416; c. 72, p. 417, 418.
§ Discourse, &e. p. 96, 347, 348, 384; ed. 2. 95, 338, 339, 374.
Stromat. 1. 1, p. 311, 314; 1. 2, p. 363, 370, 387, 388, 390.

Discourse, &c. p. 96, 346, 348, 351, 385; ed. 2. p. 95, 336, 339, 342, 375.

yea, he

grace of God, and render that useless and unnecessary : affirms, that free will, without the wings of grace, can neither rise nor fly. In one place he says, "Nor can we obtain the perfection of good without our free choice, nor yet does that wholly lie in our will, such as it shall come to pass, for by grace we are saved, but not without good works." And in another place he has this observation †, "Whether the Father himself draws unto him, every one that lives purely, and attains to the understanding of happiness, and of the incorruptible nature; or whether our free will coming to the knowledge of that which is good, skips and leaps over the ditches, as is said in the schools, πλην ου χαριτος ανευ της εξαιρετου πτερούται τε και ανισταται και ανω των VπEPKELμEVWV ALрeтai xn, yet the soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace." He says indeed elsewhere, "that we are by nature fit for virtue, yet not so as to have it e§ yeverns, 'from our birth,' but we are fit to possess it." His meaning is, I apprehend, that men have a capacity, which irrational and inanimate creatures have not, of possessing virtue, and receiving the grace of God, of which they are destitute when born, and so in this respect are not like stocks and stones, that are incapable of such things.

SECTION VII.

TERTULLIAN. A. D. 200.

TERTULLIAN appears from many passages in his writings to have understood the doctrine of original sin, both with respect to the imputation of it to men unto condemnation, and the derivation of a corrupt nature from it; whereby not only man is become filthy and impure, but having lost the image of God, is also impotent to every thing that is spiritual and heavenly. "We call Satan," says he §, "the angel of wickedness, the artificer of every error, the interpolator of every age; by whom man from the beginning being circumvented, so as to transgress the commands of God, was therefore delivered unto death, exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit, hence he has also made the whole kind, or all mankind, which springs from his seed, infected, partaker of his damnation." And in another place, having mentioned John iii. 5, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God; that is, says he, he will not be holy. Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recensetur, "every soul is reckoned so long in Adam until it is rereckoned, or reckoned again, or renewed in Christ; so long unclean, as long as not recounted, sinful indeed because unclean, receiving its own disgrace from its society with the flesh. What crime," says he ¶, "before that of impatience was committed, is imputed to man? He was innocent, the nearest friend to God, and the husbandman of Ibid. 1. 6, P. 662.

*Stromat. 1. 5, p. 547.

+ Ibid. p. 588.

§ Tertullian. de Testimon. Animæ, c. 3, p 82.
¶ De Patientia, c. 5, p. 162.

|| Ib. de Anima, c. 40, p. 342.

paradise? but when he once gave way to impatience, desinit Deo sapere, desinit cœlestia sustinere posse, he ceased to be wise to God, he ceased to be able to bear heavenly things." There are indeed some passages * in this writer which seem to countenance the doctrine of free will, and are alleged by Dr. Whitby † on that account; but in these he is to be understood of the natural liberty of the will, which he defended against the Basilidians and Marcionites, and of the power and freedom of the will, about things natural and moral, with which man was at first created, wherein lay the image and likeness of God in man; but Tertullian could never think that this is to be found with man now as then, since he affirms that "the image of God was destroyed by the sin of our first parents;" and it is abundantly manifest, that this writer so held free will as that he believed it was subject to the grace of God; his words are these §, An evil tree will not yield good fruit, if it is not ingrafted; and a good one will yield evil fruit, if it is not dressed; and stones will become the children of Abraham, if they are formed into the faith of Abraham; and a generation of vipers will bring forth fruit to repentance, if they spit out the poison of malignity; hæc erit vis divinæ gratiæ potentior utique natura, habens in nobis subjacentem sibi liberam arbitrii, potestatem, quod αυτεξούσιον dicitur, this will be the power of divine grace, more powerful truly than nature, having free will in us, which goes by the name of avregovorov, subject to itself."

[ocr errors]

SECTION VIII.

ORIGINES ALEXANDRINUS. A. D. 230.

ORIGEN is called by Jerom, writing against the Pelagians, their Beloved, their Master, the Prince, or author of their error**; and says, that their doctrine is Origenis ramusculus, "a sprig of Origen.” It need not therefore be thought strange that there are in his writings passages which smell rank of free will in the grossest sense; and especially since many of his works come to us through the hands of Ruffinus, said to be a friend to the Pelagian scheme; and indeed it is no wonder that Origen himself should be somewhat tainted with principles tending that way, seeing he succeeded Clemenis and Pantænus, men both addicted to the stoic philosophy, which obtained in their school, whereby the gospel began to be stripped of its native simplicity. However, notwithstanding all this, it is certain that Origen held the doctrine of original sin, and was sensible of the corruption and weakness of human nature, and of the necessity of the grace and help of God to every good work; and that even to have a will to that which is good, is from the Lord. That he understood the doctrine of original sin, and the guilt and pollution of mankind by it, will appear *Adv. Marcion. 1. 2, c. 5 & 6, p. 457, 458; Exhort. Cast. c. 2, p. 665; de Monog. c. 14, p. 686. + Discourse, &c. p. 96, 346, 348; ed. 2. 95, 337, 339.

De Cult. Fœmin. 1. 1, c. 1, p. 170; adv. Marcion. 1. 2, c. 5, p. 456.

§ De Anima, c. 21, p. 324.

Adv. Pelag. 1. 3, p. 102, H. **Ad Ctesiphont. p. 84, G.

¶ Ib. 1. 1, p. 89, M.

evident from the following instances: "In Adam *, as saith the word, all die, and are condemned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, which the divine word says not so much of some one, as of all mankind— for η αρα του Αδαμ κοινη παντων εστι, the curse of Adam is common to

all."

Again+, "But if you please to hear what other saints have thought of this birth, hear David, saying, I am conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother brought me forth; showing, that whatever soul is born in the flesh, iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluitur, is defiled with the filth of sin and iniquity." These words he elsewhere says, David spoke ex persona omnium nascentium, "in the person of all born of flesh and blood;" and therefore it is said, which we have already mentioned above, "for no man is pure from filth, though his life is but of one day." And in the same work§, "Every one that comes into this world is said to be made in some defilement, wherefore the Scripture says, no man is pure from filth, though his life is but of one day; and this defilement," he says, "is in the mother's womb, and that in the mother the child is polluted, even in the very conception." In another place, he says, "The first man, Adam, being wickedly persuaded, through the deceit of the serpent, hath declined from the right way of paradise, to the evil and crooked paths of mortal life; wherefore consequently, omnes qui ex ipsius successione in hunc mundum veniunt declinaverunt, all who come into this world by succession from him have turned aside,' and are together become unprofitable with him." And in the same commentary he thus argues, "If Levi, who was born in the fourth generation after Abraham, is said to be in the loins of Abraham, multo magis omnes homines qui in hoc mundo nascuntur, et nati sunt, in lumbis erant Adæ, cum adhuc esset in paradiso, much more were all men, who are born in this world, in the loins of Adam, when he was yet in paradise;' and all men with him, or in him, were driven out of paradise when he was drove from thence; and by him death, which came to him through his transgression, consequently passed upon them who were reckoned in his loins." Once more, says he**, "if any one considers this body of humility in which we are born, if any one considers this, no man is pure from filth, though_his life is but of one day, and his months are numbered; he will see how γεγενημεία μετα ακαθαρσίας, ‘we are born with impurity, and the uncircumcision of our heart." In the same work he has this expression tt, "In Adam all die, and so the whole world fell, and needs raising again, that all men be made alive in Christ;" the devil, he says, "is called a murderer, not because he killed some one privately, but because he killed all mankind." So elsewhere §§, commenting on those words, Through the offence of one death reigned by one; "This," he says, "shows, that through sin the kingdom is given to death; nor could it reign in any, unless it receives the right of reigning

* Contr. Cels. 1. 4, p. 191. In Luc. homil. 9, fol. 23, C. In Lev. homil. 12, fol. 85, E. ** In Jer. homil. 5, p. 86. tt

In Lev. homil. 8, fol. 75, A.
Vide Comment. in Matt. p. 391, ed. Huet.
In Rom. 1. 3, fol. 153, A.
Ib. homil. 8, p. 96.
§§ In Rom. 1. 5, fol. 173, E.

¶ Ib. 1. 5, fol. 169, G. Comm. in Joannem, p. 316.

from sin; by which seems to be pointed out, that whereas the soul was created free by God, ipsa se in servitutem redigat per delictum, it could reduce itself into bondage through sin." Hence he frequently suggests the weakness of human nature, and its insufficiency to do any thing that is good, and the need it stands in of the assistance of God. “Human nature," he says, "is weak, and that it may be made stronger, divino auxilio indiget, it needs divine help.' We read, the flesh is weak, therefore, by what help is it to be confirmed? Verily, by the Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak; he that would be stronger ought to be strengthened only by the Spirit." And in another placet, "We in our earth (for it was said to Adam, Earth thou art) have need of the strength of God, χωρίς δε της δυνάμεως του Ocov, 'for without the power of God' we are not able to perform those things which are contrary to the wisdom of the flesh." Again, "What need is there to say, what wisdom do we want to consider the works of Abraham ? and what power to do them? η ποιας δυναμεως deoμeba, what power do we need but Christ's,' who is the power of God, and wisdom of God?" He further observes §, that "if the branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in the vine, it is evident that the disciples of the word, the intelligible branches of the true vine, the word, ου δύνανται φερειν τους καρπους της αρετης, cannot bear the fruit of virtue, except they abide in the true vine, the Christ of God;" or, according to another copy, “who is God.” And in the same work || he says, “ Because ουκ αυταρκης ημετερα προαίρεσις, our free will is not sufficient to have a clean heart, but we are in need of God, who creates such an one; therefore it is said by him, who knew how to pray, Create in me a clean heart, O God!" And a little after¶, "We say, that ovê αυταρκης η ανθρωπινη φυσι, ‘human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner, and to find him purely, unless helped by him that is sought." As he will not allow ** what is done by man to be properly good, and no good thing to be done without God++, so he denies that a will to do good is from man, but ascribes it to God; mentioning those words of Christ, If any man will come after me, &c. he makes this observation ++, "Hereby is shown, that to will to come after Jesus, and follow him, ουκ απο του τυχοντος ανδραγαθήματος ywerai, 'does not arise from any heroic action done by men,' for no man, not denying himself, can follow Jesus." And in another place he says§§, "Not only to will, but also to work, as saith the apostle Paul, EK TOV OEov EσTW, is of God; to work, always following to will well, as its yokefellow;" wherefore this doctrine does not at all discourage diligence and industry, study and endeavour to perform good works in a dependence on divine grace and assistance.

* In Luc. homil. 11, fol. 93, H. § Contr. Cels. 1. 5, p. 239.

+ In Psalm, p. 38.

In Jerem. homil. 8, p. 95.
|| Ib. 1. 7, p. 354.
In Matt. p. 287.

Ib. p. 360.

Com. in Joan. p. 296. ** Com. in Matt. p. 377. §§ In Joan. P. 312

« PreviousContinue »