apud nostros de fato, et disciplinæ nocuerunt." Melanct. Epist. lib. iii. epist. 44.

At the commencement of the Reformation, both Melancthon and Luther held the harsh doctrine of a Philosophical Necessity. To this the former alludes in his letter to Cranmer, from which the above passage is taken. See it quoted at length, note 6. After the Diet of Augsburg in the year 1530, the obnoxious tenet was no more heard of. Indeed, so early as in 1527, these Reformers appear to have abandoned it; at least, when in that year a form of doctrine was drawn up for the Churches of Saxony, Free Will in acts of morality was thus inculcated: "Voluntas humana est ❝ita libera, ut facere aliquo modo possit justitiam car"nis seu justitiam civilem, ubi lege et vi cogitur, ut "non furari, non occidere, non mœchari..... Propterea "doceant, in nostra manu aliquo modo esse carnem "frænare, et civilem justitiam præstare; et hortentur "diligenter ad recte vivendum, quia Deus hanc quoque "justitiam exigit, et graviter puniet illos, qui adeo "negligenter vivunt. Nam sicut aliis donis Dei bene ❝uti debemus, ita etiam viribus, quas Deus naturæ "tribuit, bene uti debemus." Cap. de Libero Arbitrio. "Non enim delectatur Deus ista vitæ ferocitate “quorundam, qui cum audierint non justificari nos viribus "et operibus, somniant se velle expectare, a Deo donec "trahuntur, interea vivunt impurissime; hi maximas pœ"nas dabunt Deo. Sunt igitur valde objurgandi a do"centibus in Ecclesia." Cap. de Lege. Articuli suspectionis Ecclesiarum Saxoniæ. Edit. 1530. This work, which is generally termed, "Libellus Visitationis "Saxon." was composed by Melancthon in German the year alluded to, and afterwards republished by Luther, with a preface, in which he thus expresses himself: "Non edimus hæc ut præcepta rigorosa, nec "Pontificia decreta denuo cudimus, sed historica et

❝acta referimus, et confessionem et symbolum fidei nos"træ." See Seckendorf, lib. ii. sec. 13. §. 36. When this publication first appeared, Erasmus (whose previous controversy with Luther upon the subject of Free Will probably tended much to produce an amelioration of the Lutheran system) made the following reflexions; "Indies mitescit febris Lutherana, adeo ut "ipse Lutherus de singulis propemodum scribat pali"nodias, ac cæteris habeatur ob hoc ipsum hæreticus "ac delirus." Anno 1528. Epistolæ, lib. xx. ep. 63. And again, lib. xx. epist. 67.

That Melancthon not only abandoned, but reprehended the doctrine in the year 1529, we cannot doubt, because his own express testimony in proof of it remains on record. In a letter to Christopher Stathmio, not long before his death, he notices the subject in these words; " Apud Homerum fortissimus bellator optat concordiam his verbis; ὡς ἔρις ἔκτε θέων, ἔκτ ̓ ἀν

66

Jgúпwν ȧñóλoito. Quanto magis me senem et infir"mum optare pacem consentaneum est? Ante annos "triginta, non studio contentionis, sed propter gloriam "Dei, et propter disciplinam, reprehendi Stoica para"doxa de necessitate, quia et contra Deum contumeliosa "sunt, et nocent moribus. Nunc mihi bellum inferunt "Stoicorum phalanges, sed in qua sententia possint ac"quiescere mentes anxiæ, rursus moderate exposui in "responsione quam Bavaricæ inquisitioni opposui . . . .' March 20, 1559. Epist. Lib. Lond. p. 407. By consulting the tract, to which he himself alludes, we find him using this strong and unequivocal language; "Palam etiam rejicio et detestor Stoicos et Manichæos "furores, qui affirmant omnia necessario fieri bonas et "malas actiones, de quibus omitto hic longiores dis"putationes. Tantum oro juniores, ut fugiant has "monstrosas opiniones, quæ sunt contumeliosæ contra "Deum, et perniciosa moribus." Opera, vol. i. p. 370.

S

From his Loci Theologici, in which he had at first introduced it, he expunged this obnoxious tenet in the year 1535, inserting in its place the opposite one of Contingency. For it is certain, that then appeared a new and enlarged edition of the work, thus amended, (Buddæi Isagoge, p. 346,) and that still further additions to it were made in the year 1545. Luther indeed never formally revoked any of his writings; but on this last corrected production of his friend he bestowed the highest commendations. Preface to the first volume of his Works, anno 1546. He nevertheless scrupled not publicly to assert, that at the beginning of the Reformation he had not completely settled his Creed: "Edidi item meæ fidei confessionem, in qua

66

quid et quomodo credam, et quibus in Articulis tan"dem acquiescere cogitem, palam testatus sum." Opera Witteb. vol. vii. p. 139. He seems indeed to have generally avoided the subject, from the period of his controversy with Erasmus, to the publication of his Commentary upon Genesis, his last work of importance: but in this, after a long argument to prove that, as we have no knowledge of the unrevealed Deity, we have nothing to do with those things which are above our comprehension; (" de Deo quatenus non est revelatus "nulla sit fides, nulla scientia, et cognitio nulla. Atque “ibi tenendum, quod dicitur, quæ supra nos, nihil "ad nos;") and that we are not to reason upon Predestination out of Christianity, he thus apologizes for his former opinions; "Hæc studiose et accurate sic "monere et tradere volui, quia post meam mortem "multi meos libros proferent in medium, et inde omnis "generis errores, et deliria sua confirmabunt. Scripsi "autem inter reliqua esse omnia absoluta et necessaria, "sed simul addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus, "sicut in Psalmo canimus, Jesus Christus est Dominus "Zebaoth, nec est alius Deus. Et alias sæpissime.

"Sed istos locos omnes transibunt, et eos tantum arri

66

pient de Deo abscondito. Vos ergo, qui nunc me "audistis, memineritis me hoc docuisse, Non esse inqui"rendum de Prædestinatione Dei absconditi, sed in illis "acquiescendum, quæ revelantur per vocationem et per "ministerium verbi. . . . . Hæc eadem autem alibi quoque in meis libris protestatus sum, et nunc etiam "viva voce trado: Ideo sum excusatus." Opera, vol. vi. p. 355.

This subject will be again alluded to in note 14, Serm. IV. and in note 15, Serm. VII.