"nis, verbum Dei, Spiritus Sanctus, et humana voluntas, "assentiens nec repugnans verbo Dei. Posset enim ex"cutere, ut excutit Saul sua sponte. Sed cum mens "audiens ac sustentans non repugnat, non indulget “diffidentiæ, sed, adjuvante etiam Spiritu Sancto, co"natur assentiri, in hoc certamine voluntas non est ❝otiosa. "Veteres dixerunt, præcedente gratia, comitante vo"luntate, bona opera fieri. Sic et Basilius inquit, póvov σε θέλησον, καὶ Θεὸς προαπαντᾷ, tantum velis, et Deus 'præoccurrit.' Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, ad"juvat, sed nos viderimus, ne repugnemus. Constat "enim peccatum oriri a nobis non a voluntate Dei. " Chrysostomus inquit, ὁ δὲ ἕλκων, τὸν βουλόμενον ἕλκει. "Sicut et in illo ipso loco Joan. dicitur, Omnis qui audit a Patre et discit, veniet ad me.' Discere jubet; "id est, audire verbum, non repugnare, sed assentiri "verbo Dei, non indulgere diffidentiæ." p. 91, 92. Such was the explication of this point, which he gave in his last corrected edition of 1545. Fearing, however, that he might still be misunderstood, he afterwards inserted the passage quoted in the preceding note, and the following: "Si tantum expectanda esset illa infusio quali"tatum, sine ulla nostra actione, sicut Enthusiastæ et "Manichæi finxerunt, nihil opus esset ministerio Evan"gelico, nulla etiam lucta in animis esset. Sed insti"tuit Deus ministerium, ut vox accipiatur, ut promis"sionem mens cogitet et amplectatur, et dum repugna"mus diffidentiæ, Spiritus Sanctus simul in nobis sit "efficax. "Sic igitur illis, qui cessationem suam excusant, qui "putant nihil agere liberum arbitrium, respondeo; imo "mandatum Dei æternum et immotum est, ut voci "Evangelii obtemperes, ut Filium Dei audias, ut ag"noscas Mediatorem. Quam tetra sunt hæc peccata, "nolle aspicere donatum generi humano Mediatorem Fi "lium Dei? Non possum, inquies. Imo aliquo modo "potes; et cum te voce Evangelii sustentas, adjuvari "te a Deo petito, et scito velle Deum hoc ipso modo "nos convertere, cum promissione excitati luctamur "nobiscum, invocamus, et repugnamus diffidentiæ nostræ, "et aliis vitiosis affectibus. Ideo veteres aliqui sic dixe"runt, liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse appli"candi se ad gratiam, id est, audit promissionem, et as“sentiri conatur, et abjicit peccata contra conscientiam. "Talia non fiunt in diabolis. Discrimen igitur inter "diabolos et genus humanum consideretur. Fiunt "autem hæc illustriora considerata promissione. Cum "promissio sit universalis, nec sint in Deo contrariæ vo"luntates, necesse est, in nobis esse aliquam discriminis "causam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatur, id est, 66 necesse est, aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duo"bus." p. 93, 94. These quotations require no comment. And that they are solely confined to the action of the human will, while converting from evil, and not while persevering in good, is manifest not only from their general construction, but from that which immediately follows: "Præterea, si de tota vita piorum loqua"mur, etsi est ingens imbecillitas, tamen aliqua est “libertas voluntatis, cum quidem jam a Spiritu Sancto "adjuvetur, &c." That the doctrine of Contingency was fully asserted in all the later editions of this work, will be shewn in Serm. VII. note 15. Extracts of a similar description might be easily adduced from the other writings of Melancthon; but the above perhaps may be sufficiently convincing. I shall however add another from an Exposition of the Nicene Creed, sent by Melancthon to Cranmer in the year 1550, which is expressed in terms too unequivocal to be mistaken: "Adversus Manichæos hæc fundamenta "tenenda sunt. ..omnes homines posse converti ad "Deum, nec voluntatem se habere pure passive, sed aliquo .... “modo active, ac assentiri posse Deo trahenti." Opera, vol. i. p. 415. To be persuaded that the sentiments of the Loci Theologici were those of the Lutheran Church at the time, it will be only necessary to read the following declaration of Melancthon himself upon this very subject, in answer to the calumnies of Flaccius, who had accused him of having corrupted the doctrine of Luther: "Quod vero clamitat Flaccius Illyricus, et doc"trinam mutari, et restitui cæremonias quasdam aboli"tas, primum de doctrina respondebo. Palam refutat "hanc calumniam vox omnium docentium in Eccle"siis nostris, et in Scholis. Ac ne longa aut obscura "sit responsio, de universa doctrina sentio, quod scripsi " in eo libro, qui in multorum manibus est, titulo Lo66 corum Theologicorum, in quo non volui novum doctri"næ genus constituere, sed fideliter collegi doctrinam communem harum Ecclesiarum, quæ amplexæ sunt con"fessionem exhibitam Imperatori anno 1530, quam sen"tentiam judico esse perpetuam Ecclesiæ Catholicæ "doctrinam, ac volo dextre, et sine sophistica, et sine “calumniis, intelligi id scriptum. 66 "Et quantum mihi conscius sum, non studio dissen"tiendi ab aliis, non amore novitatis, non piλovexía, "aut ulla alia prava cupiditate impulsus sum, ut illam "epitomen colligerem. Sed tempora occasionem præ"buerunt. Cum in prima inspectione Ecclesiarum" (viz. anno 1527.)" comperissemus admodum dissonos clamo66 res esse ineruditorum de multis rebus, summam doc"trinæ, quam Lutherus in diversis et interpretationum "et concionum voluminibus tradidit, tanquam in unum 66 corpus redactam edidi, et quæsivi genus verborum, "quo ad proprietatem, quæ ad perspicuitatem et con"cordiam utilis est, discentes assuefierent, ac semper om"nia scripta judicio Ecclesiæ nostræ et ipsius Lutheri per"misi; de multis quæstionibus etiam diserte sciscitatus sum "Lutherum, quid sentiret, ac multi pagellarum istarum "exempla adhuc habent." Epist. Lond. p. 134. Indeed so generally was this fact admitted at the exact æra, in which our Articles were composed, that when Osiander attempted to propagate a novel opinion upon Justification, all his colleagues opposed it upon the principle, that necessarily it could not be consistent with the doctrine of Luther, because contrary to that of Melancthon. "Andreas Osiander, quem in Prussiam ❝ivisse diximus, novum hoc tempore dogma propo“nit, ...suæque sententiæ Lutherum etiam fuisse "dicit. Reliqui vero theologi college fortiter oppug“nant, deque Luthero falsum esse dicunt, qui non ita "multis mensibus ante mortem de libro Philippi Me"lancthonis, quo sacræ Scripturæ Loci tractantur "Communes, præclarum et amplum reliquisset in primi "tomi præfatione testimonium. Quum ergo Philippum “invadat, Lutherum quoque sibi facere adversarium, "quod idem ambo sentiant." Sleidani Comment. anno 1551. On the whole, therefore, it seems certain, that the Lutherans at every period maintained the resistibility of grace, and a cooperation of the mind with it, after a previous conversion of heart, in the production of genuine holiness; and that, when their Creed began to be settled, they admitted likewise a cooperation during the act of conversion itself; for such a tenet was avowedly embraced in a work, purposely drawn up to comprise an unsophisticated explication of their faith, by the author of their public Confession, and as such universally received and studied. It should be added, that, when our Articles were composed, the Loci Theologici still remained in the highest credit; and that, although the Lutherans at a much later æra chose to reject its authority, upon the very topic under consideration, and revert to the idea of a pure passivity in conversion; to the idea, that the human will, although not idle, contributed nothing towards the formation of the act itself; yet their very rejection of it satisfactorily proved the nature of that doctrine, which they conceived it to inculcate. Let it not however be supposed, that because they denied, in a very important point of view, the agency of the human will, they on that account were disposed to patronise the Calvinistical system of Predestination. On the contrary, they beheld it with abhorrence; nor did they scruple to express their disapprobation of it in language, which a modern Arminian would scarcely adopt, or a modern Calvinist endure. Page 96, note (15). Deinde, ut palam fiat quam longe aberraverint a veritate cœci isti et cæcorum duces, et quam ista sua impia et blasphema doctrina non solum obscuraverint, sed simpliciter sustulerint Evangelium et Christum obruerint. Si enim ego existens in peccato mortali possum facere aliquod opusculum, quod non solum secundum substantiam sit gratum Deo, sed etiam possit mereri gratiam de congruo, et ubi habuero gratiam, possum facere opera secundum gratiam, id est, delectionem, et acquirere de jure æternam vitam, quid jam opus est mihi gratia Dei, remissione peccatorum, promissione morte et victoria Christi? Christus jam plane mihi otiosus est; habeo enim liberum arbitrium, et vires faciendi bonum opus, per quod gratiam mereor de congruo, et postea æternam vitam de condigno. . . . . Quare cum Paulo in toto negamus meritum congrui et condigni, et certa fiducia pronunciamus, istas speculationes esse mera ludibria Satanæ, nunquam facta aut exemplis ostensa. Nemini enim unquam dedit Deus gratiam et vitam æternam pro merito congrui et condigni. Sunt ergo illæ disputationes Scholasticorum de merito congrui et condigni tantum inania figmenta et speculabilia hominum otiosorum |