66

"rientes abjiciuntur in æternas pœnas." De Discrimine Peccati. Thus too, for the express purpose of proving, that a fall from grace may be final, as well as total, Melancthon frequently referred to the example of Saul. "Exempla cogitemus Saulis et Davidis, qui et beneficia, "quæ recensui, tenuerunt ante lapsum, et post lapsum "exuti tantis bonis, pœnas senserunt, quas recitavi. Et "Saul prorsus periit, oppressus æternis pænis; David “ vero rursus ad Deum conversus est." Loci Theolog. p. 431. But in other passages he is, if possible, still more explicit: "Qui aguntur Spiritu Sancto, hi sunt "filii Dei; sed ruentes contra conscientiam, effundunt "et perturbant Spiritum Sanctum; desinunt igitur esse "filii Dei." Ibid. p. 280. "Affirmo etiam labentes in "talia scelera excutere Spiritum Sanctum, et rursus fi"eri reos æternæ pœnæ, quorum aliqui redeuntes ad "pœnitentiam, ut Aaron, David, rursus ad Deum con"vertuntur, et recipiuntur in gratiam; multi non rede"untes ruunt in æternas pœnas.” Op. vol. i. p. 375.

Page 159, note (20).

When Melancthon heard, that Calvin had imprisoned Bolsec at Geneva, for a difference of opinion upon the point of predestination, he communicated the circumstance to his friends, with the following reflections upon it: "Lelius mihi scribit tanta esse Geneva certamina "de Stoica necessitate, ut carceri inclusus sit quidam a "Zenone dissentiens. O rem miseram! Doctrina sa"lutaris obscuratur peregrinis disputationibus." Epistolæ Lond. p. 396. "Ac vide seculi furores, certamina "Allobrogica de Stoica necessitate tanta sunt, ut carceri "inclusus sit quidam, qui a Zenone dissentit. . . . . Et "mitiores sunt Tigurini." Anno 1552. Ibid. p. 923.

I have remarked, (p. 247.) that Bolsec represented the doctrine of the Lutheran Reformer as adverse to that of Calvin. Hence the latter, who was not ignorant of the fact, how much soever he chose to dissem

66

ble it, wrote to Melancthon upon the subject, and solicited in the most pressing, but certainly not in the most conciliating, manner, a modification of his sentiments. In this letter the following passages, in addition to that already given, p. 240. are worthy of observation. At the commencement of it, Calvin states a report, which had reached him, respecting Melancthon's anger at the reception of a preceding monitory epistle. "Relatum mihi fuerat, sic te, mea quadam libera ad"monitione, quæ tamen longe aliter afficere te debuerat, "fuisse offensum, ut epistolam coram aliquot testibus "conscinderes. Etsi autem parum credibilis erat nun"cius, ex quo tamen longo temporis successu variis "signis confirmatus est, aliquid tandem suspicari coactus sum.' After stating the appeal of Bolsec in the extract already given, he adds; "Me non leviter pungit quæ in nostra dicendi ratione nimis palam conspicitur repugnantia. . . . . Cum res" (he means according to his own theory) "adeo plana sit, te ex animi sensu prorsus diversum tradere, nemo erit sani judicii, cui per"suadeas. Curam simul et dolorem mihi auget, quod "te video hac in re propemodum esse tui dissimilem. "Audio enim, cum tibi oblata esset formula nostræ cum Tigurina Ecclesia consensionis, protinus, arrepto calamo, sententiam unam, quæ Dei electos a reprobis "parce et sobrie discernit, abs te fuisse confossam. Quod "certe ab ingenii tui mansuetudine, ut alia taceam, valde "abhorret. Itaque ut meum libellum" (viz. de æterna Dei prædestinatione) "legere vel saltem gustare sustineas, non rogo, quia id frustra mihi facturus video." Epist. Calvini, p. 108, 109. This epistle, (evidently written under a very sensible mortification,) which is dated December 1552, remained unanswered; for in September 1554, we find Calvin making a second ineffectual experiment upon the same subject: "Quanquam "meis ultimis literis abs te non fuisse responsum doleo, et

66

66

"valde miror, fastidio tamen vel contemptu id esse fac"tum, quum nihil minus in naturam moresque tuos "cadat, suspicari nequeo. Itaque nuncium hunc nac❝tus, qui suam mihi in literis tibi reddendis operam ob“ tulit, tentandum rursus putavi, num forte quid possem “ elicere. . . . . . Manifestum certe dissidium in scriptis "nostris extare, pessimi exempli esse vides. Nec vero "hanc tollendæ discrepantiæ legem præscribo, ut tu "mihi assentiaris; sed ne pudeat nos sacris Dei ora"culis subscribere. Quærendæ vero conciliationis quæ"cunque tibi placuerit ratio, eam libenter amplector." Ibid. p. 133, 134. To this last letter Melancthon immediately sent a very short reply, noticing some other topics, which it contained, but still preserving an inflexible silence upon the principal question thus repeatedly pressed upon him. Ibid. p. 148.

How impracticable the adoption was of any intermediate terms between their discordant sentiments, without a manifest sacrifice of principle, the preceding extracts from Melancthon's writings sufficiently prove. But, besides the opposite tendency of their respective opinions in a general point of view, on some important particulars an approximation seemed impossible. Calvin observed, "Verum mihi acutius ac prudentius vide"tur perspexisse Valla, .... qui supervacaneam esse ❝ contentionem ostendit, quoniam et vita et mors divinæ "magis voluntatis, quam præscientiæ, sunt actiones." Instit. lib. iii. cap. 23. sect. 6. And again, "Non dubi"tabo igitur cum Augustino simpliciter fateri, volun"tatem Dei esse rerum necessitatem, atque id necessario "futurum esse, quod ille voluerit." Ibid. sect. 8. On the other hand Melancthon asserted, "Errat Valla, cum "detrahit libertatem voluntati propter prædestinationem. 66 .... Falsa est et perniciosa moribus et religioni Stoi"corum opinio, qua affirmant omnia necessario evenire. "Contingentia constanter defendenda est, nisi enim con

"tingentia ponatur, sequitur, ut Deus dicatur esse auctor "peccati." Disputat. Luth. Oper. vol. i. p. 478. The former argued, that Adam's fall was decreed by an absolute will of God."Nec absurdum videri debet, quod "dico, Deum non modo primi hominis casum, et in eo "posterorum ruinam prævidisse, sed arbitrio quoque suo dispensasse." Instit. ibid. sect. 8. The latter, that it was contingent, and not preordained: "Heva et "Adam sua libertate averterunt se a Deo, ita hæ (acti❝ones) sunt verissime contingentes, et nequaquam néces"saria. Adam violans mandatum Dei, accersit sibi "mortem, quia verissimum est Deum non voluisse, nec "approbasse id peccatum." Vol. i. p. 408. a species of comment, which the Institute calls frigid: "Tam "frigidum commentum si recipitur, &c." Ibid. Calvin inflexibly maintained what was supposed to be a contradiction in the divine will, which invites, according to him, all to salvation, but admits only the elect. "Ob"jiciunt nonnulli, Deum sibi fore contrarium, si uni"versaliter omnes ad se invitet, paucos vero electos ad"mittat. Sic promissionum universitas discretionem specialis gratiæ, secundum eos, tollit." Ibid. lib. iii. cap. 22. sect. 10. Aliquid disserui, eorum errorem "refellens, quibus generalitas promissionum videtur æquare totum humanum genus." Ibid. cap. 24. sect. 1. But Melancthon, asserting a real, and not a fictitious, universality in God's promises, vindicated the consistency of the Deity: "Cum dictum est necessario judicandum "esse de voluntate Dei ex verbo ab ipso tradito, et non "ex imaginationibus humanis, tenenda est etiam hæc regula, Non esse ponendas contradictorias voluntates in "Deo, quia Deus verax est. Cum igitur promissio sit “universalis, .... includamus nos in promissionem uni"versalem, Venite ad me omnes, &c.' et eum ad nos "pertinere statuamus." Opera, vol. iv. p. 162. See also the conclusion of notes 16 and 22.

66

66

66

The Lutheran Reformer, indeed, seems to have entertained a complete abhorrence of Stoicism: "Non "sum Stoicus," he observed, "et aliquanto fortius di"mico cum Zenonis familia de fato, quam nostri bel"latores ad Danubium et ad Albim præliati sunt.” Epist. Lond. p. 370. "Removeamus igitur a Deo "Stoicam torvitatem, et vere nos ab eo diligi statuamus, "cum condita sogyǹ in natura hominum testetur in ipso "etiam esse verum et flagrantem amorem." Ibid. p. 557. And, when about to be attacked by two of his most inveterate enemies (Flaccius and Gallus) on this very account, he thus mentions the threatened controversy: "Audio mihi quosdam bellum illaturos, wegi “ àvayuñs swixñs, quod si moverint, judico me Deo et "Ecclesiæ debere hoc officium, ut deliramenta contu"meliosa contra Deum refutem." Anno 1555. Ibid. p. 458. See p. 266, ep. 84; p. 271, ep. 96; p. 405, ep. 444; and p. 463, ep. 593, 594, 595, and 596.

Page 159, note (21).

At Stoicæ illæ disputationes execrandæ sunt, quas asserunt aliqui, disputantes, omnia peccata paria esse; electos semper retinere Spiritum Sanctum, etiam cum lapsus atroces admittunt. Loci Theolog. p. 126. Intueamur verbum Dei nobis traditum, ut voluntatem Dei monstret, et expavescamus agnoscentes judicium Dei propositum in verbo, et in exemplis, nec confirmemus in stultis securitatem et cæcitatem. Ibid. p. 125.

Page 160, note (22).

At the period of the Reformation the Scholastics asserted, in direct terms, that individuals were predestinated solely on account of their personal merits: "Re"centiores Scholastici tantum humano judicio dixerunt 66 causam electionis esse merita, seu bona opera liberæ "voluntatis humanæ. Et hæc imaginatio orta est ex "ignoratione Evangelii." Melancth. Opera, vol. iii. p. 1014.