The Friendship of Melanchthon and Calvin

By James T. Hickman

Houston, Texas

That reliance upon caricature is hazardous is illustrated by the popular impressions of Philip Melanchthon and John Calvin. Calvin is portrayed as a dogmatic, unyielding theologian who could tolerate no variance of opinion. Calvin and Melanchthon disagreed on the crucial doctrine of free will, yet Calvin struggled to maintain their friendship during the crucial years 1550–1556. Melanchthon is described as a meek, mild-mannered, conciliatory scholar. Yet, when Luther hesitated in responding to the 1525 Peasants’ Revolt it was Melanchthon who persuaded him to instruct the princes to take the most severe action. Furthermore, while Melanchthon acknowledged that many Ana-baptists were peaceful, he insisted that all should be executed lest their churches breed the more radical variety.

Melanchthon was fifteen years older than Calvin; they represented two major modes of the continental reformation; they differed on important theological issues, yet they were intimate friends. The purpose of this article is to explore the background, sources, and course of this friendship and to evaluate its contribution to our understanding of the Reformation.

In August 1518, when Philip Melanchthon joined the faculty at the University of Wittenberg, his reputation as a scholar was already growing.[1] After taking his master’s degree in 1514 from the University of Tübingen, he remained there to teach and to write. “He did much to revive the classics at Tübingen. While there he edited editions of Terence (1516)’ and a Greek grammar.”[2] Due to intrigue and jealousy on the part of his fellow faculty members Melanchthon decided to leave Tübingen. Through the efforts of his great-uncle Reuchlin, he was invited to teach Greek at the University of Wittenberg, where he would join other faculty members such as Caspar Borner, Andrew Bodenstein (Carlstadt), and Martin Luther.[3] His arrival came less than a year before the decisive Leipzig debate.

The mutual admiration of Luther and Melanchthon began immediately. As Melanchthon embraced the cause of the Reformation it became evident that his nature and scholarship complemented those of Luther, although he was never Luther’s parrot. “The miner’s son drew forth the metal of faith out of the deep pit, the armourer’s son fashioned the metal for defiance and defense.”[4] The constancy of Melanchthon’s devotion to Luther would later cause Calvin great distress.

The next two decades were filled with activity for the two German reformers, including the appearance of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes (1521). Of particular importance was Melanchthon’s role as spokesman for the evangelical party. In 1530 Charles V came to Augsburg to attempt a reconciliation of the Protestant and Catholic forces. Recognizing the difficulty of insuring a fair hearing at the Diet, Melanchthon worked throughout the summer of 1530 to prepare a confession which could serve as a basis of dialogue. Although the Diet failed in its purpose the Confession of Augsburg remains a significant document in Reformation history. It served as a personal expression of Melanchthon’s faith, as well as the first official statement of evangelical opinions which “together with certain modifications in the Formula of Concord expresses the teaching to which the Lutheran Communion still officially conforms.”[5] Most important for our study is the fact that while Luther was forced by imperial ban to remain at Koberg, Melanchthon was the chief representative of German Protestantism at the Diet. As more and more he filled the role of spokesman, the way was being prepared for his meeting with Calvin. That meeting would come during another unsuccessful attempt to heal the division of Christendom.

In exile from Geneva, Calvin was busily pastoring in Strassburg when the call came to meet in Frankfurt in February 1539, to discuss the possibility of Christian union.[6] Although Bucer had brought them into contact by correspondence in October, 1538, this was the first meeting of Melanchthon and Calvin.[7] A letter from Calvin to William Farel in March 1539 reports that Calvin and Melanchthon had personally discussed the question of unity and the problem of church discipline.[8] Immediately Calvin “began a friendship with Melanchthon which was to be one of the most winsome of his relationships.”[9] Williston Walker summarizes the unique character of their friendship:

Unlike in so many characteristics, and differing more and more on the theological doctrine of predestination, the severely logical, courageous, firm young Frenchman, and the more timid, cautious, and compromising older German scholar found much in common. Their correspondence, though not frequent and not without expressions of disagreement, shows, especially on Calvin’s part, a great consideration, affection, and respect, and this continued Calvin’s feeling always.[10]

The humanist training of both men was foundational for the friendship. The work of Melanchthon in linguistics and the classics has already been cited; but Calvin also excelled in this area, particularly with the publication of his Commentary of Seneca’s Treatise on Clemency in 1532. Both men initially rejected philosophy, although Melanchthon eventually returned to it to supplement the expression of his theology.[11] That both men deserve the designation of genius few would deny.

The second factor is that both men were increasingly involved in the organizational leadership of the church. In fact, when they met both were rapidly taking the place of chief leader in their respective traditions. Their commitment to this task was complete:

…both devoted all their learning to the renovation of the Church; they were equally conscientious and unselfish; they agreed in the root of piety and in all essential doctrines; they deplored the divisions in the Protestant ranks and heartily desired unity and harmony consistent with truth.[12]

Finally, their friendship was born out of personal needs brought to Frankfort and Regensburg. Both were in need of pastoral care. As indicated above both were faced with greater leadership responsibilities. Furthermore, Melanchthon still bore guilt and shame for his role in the bigamy of Philip of Hesse. Soon after the Frankfort meeting Melanchthon wrote to Luther: “The weakness of my body increases more and more, for every new day I hear mounting evils about the Hessian affair.”[13] The time was also emotion packed for Calvin. At Regensburg he was contemplating an invitation to return to Geneva. Furthermore he was distressed about the danger of plague at Strassburg.[14] Thus both reformers had great personal needs when they met. In a letter from Calvin to Melanchthon, dated February 1543, the depth of their personal relationship is displayed:

This comfort we have, of which no far distant separation can deprive us—I mean, that resting content with this fellowship which Christ has also confirmed and sealed by his blessed Spirit in our hearts—while we live on the earth, we may cheer each other with that blessed hope to which your letter calls us that in heaven above we shall dwell forever where we shall rejoice in love and in continuance of our fellowship.[15]

Within a month of their first meeting Calvin wrote to Andrew Zebedee concerning Melanchthon. He spoke with reserve and admiration: “I shall not cease then loudly to proclaim that virtue which I think I perceive in Melanchthon. Meanwhile there are certain things in which I myself confess him to be deficient, so far am I from wishing to subject anyone to his opinions.”[16] Melanchthon was equally impressed with Calvin, calling him “The Theologian.”[17] Both men regarded the thought of the other with admiration in spite of differences of opinion.

Their friendship developed primarily through correspondence. There exist fourteen letters from Calvin to Melanchthon, and eight letters from Melanchthon to Calvin.[18] These letters reveal the tone of their unique friendship, and show that both felt free to criticize in their letters. In 1543 Calvin dedicated his Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine on the Slavery and Deliverance of the Human Will to Melanchthon. Although there was disagreement between the reformers on this doctrine Melanchthon thanked Calvin for his kindnesss; and suggesting that Calvin had presented only one side, he added: “I know that in general you agree with my view. I only suggest that this mode of expression is better adapted for practical use.”[19] This dialogue continued until about 1545. In that year Luther revived the old controversy concerning the eucharist. Immediately tensions arose between the two men.[20]

Two factors served to create this tension. First, Melanchthon had revealed to Calvin privately that he agreed with his interpretation of the Lord’s supper. Calvin had sent twelve articles concerning the “real presence” to Melanchthon for his opinion. In private correspondence Melanchthon wrote of his approval, but cautioned that the more obstinate would not accept the articles.[21] This agreement reflects Melanchthon’s rejection of the dogma of the ubiquity of Christ’s body because it was not found in the Fathers.[22] The second factor was the refusal of Melanchthon to disagree publicly with Luther. In spite of his friendship with Calvin, Melanchthon held the aging Luther in still higher esteem. In his letters from this period Calvin often pleaded with Melanchthon to speak, not only for the sake of his own conscience, but for those who were confused about the issue. He warned in June 1545:

Your Pericles (i.e. Luther) allows himself to be carried beyond all due bounds with his love of thunder, especially seeing that his own case is by no means the better of the two. We all of us do acknowledge that we are much indebted to him. Neither shall I submit myself unwillingly, but be quite content, that he may bear the chief sway, provided that he can manage to conduct himself with moderation. Howbeit in the church we must always be upon our guard, lest we pay too great a deference to men. For it is all over with her, when a single individual, be he whosoever you please, has more authority than all the rest, especially when this very person does not scruple to try how far he may go.[23]

In February 1546 Luther died. Melanchthon had never publicly defended Calvin. The steadfastness of Calvin’s admiration for Melanchthon was demonstrated during this crisis, for in 1546 he aided in the publication of a French edition of the Loci Communes.[24]

The decade following Luther’s death was crucial in the development of Lutheranism and much subsequent misunderstanding of Melanchthon, and also in the course of the friendship of Melanchthon and Calvin. In July 1546 the emperor announced a ban on evangelicals. Later, in 1547, the University of Wittenberg was dissolved and Melanchthon was forced to flee to Zerbst.[25] After months of tension and threats of war Melanchthon signed the Leipzig Interim in 1548. The document was designed to define non-essentials and to insure the peace of the church and the re-establishment of the University.[26] Peace was not forthcoming. Melanchthon’s fellow churchmen began to accuse him of betraying Luther’s doctrine. Especially vicious were the charges of Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520–75) who “charged that Melanchthon colluded with the papists, brought calamity on the churches, and reinstated papal domination.”[27] In spite of Melanchthon’s attempts to show the distortions in these charges, Flacius’ spirit eventually dominated Lutheranism in the form of “Protestant Scholasticism.”[28] The attacks on Melanchthon continued until the end of his life in spite of the repeal of the Interim in 1552, and even Calvin did not fully understand his motives in the beginning. This is suggested by a letter from Calvin dated June 18, 1550:

I am truly anxious to approve all your actions, both to myself and to others. But I at present accuse you before yourself, that I may not be forced to join those who condemn you in your absence. This is the sum of your defence: that provided purity of doctrine be retained, externals should not be pertinaciously contended for. And if it be true that is confidently asserted everywhere, you extend the distinction of non-essentials too far. You are not ignorant that the Papists have corrupted the worship of God in a thousand ways. We have put up with corruptions which were barely tolerable. The ungodly now order these same things to be restored, that they may triumph over a down-trodden gospel. And if any one does not hesitate to oppose this, will you not ascribe it to pertinacity? Everyone knows how this is opposed to your modesty. If you are too facile in making concessions, you need not wonder if that is marked as a fault in you by many. Moreover, several of those things which you consider indifferent, are obviously repugnant to the word of God. Perhaps there are some who insist too positively on certain points, and, as usually happens in disputes, make offensive attacks upon some things which have little harm in themselves. Truly if I have any understanding in divine things, you ought not to have made such large concessions to the Papists; partly because you have loosed what the Lord has bound in his word, and partly because you have affected occasions for bringing insult upon the Gospel.[29]

In spite of the severity of this letter Melanchthon turned to Calvin in 1552 when he complained of living in a “wasp’s nest,” and sought refuge in heaven.[30]

While Philip Melanchthon was under attack by Flacius, Calvin was facing attack concerning Servetus and the Consensus of Zurich. It is unnecessary to rehearse the events leading to the trial and death of Michael Servetus in October 1553. These are well known and we are most concerned with the aftermath of the execution. Calvin’s opponents seized the opportunity to bring charges of barbarity against him. Castellio was especially severe: “Christ would be a Moloch if He required that men should be offered and burned alive.”[31] While these attacks were few, Calvin took them quite personally. Among those to come to the reformer’s defense was Melanchthon. In 1553 Melanchthon wrote to Bullinger at Zurich:

I have read what you have written about the blasphemies of Servetus, and I praise both your devotion and your judgment. I also think that the Council of Geneva acted correctly in doing away with such an obstinate man who never ceased from blaspheming. On this point I am astonished that there are people who disapprove of this severity.[32]

This support bolstered Calvin to a new assurance. Whatever hope he may have had for continued public support from Melanchthon, however, was short-lived, for Westphal had already begun his attacks and Melanchthon again became silent. This silence should, of course, be understood in light of the attacks of Flacius.

The background for this incident was the signing in 1549 of the Consensus of Zurich by Calvin and Bullinger, an attempt to establish peace in the Reformed camps.[33] Walker speaks of the theological ambivalence of the agreement:

Undoubtedly in this agreement, and in his desire for union, Calvin went as far as he could in the Zwinglian direction. Bullinger’s decidedly modified Zwinglianism was substantially unaltered. Any form of physical presence was rejected. But an emphasis wholly agreeable to Calvin, and not objectionable to Bullinger, was laid on the true spiritual union wrought between Christ and the believer by the Sacrament, while a characteristically Calvinistic note was struck in the restriction of its benefits to the elect.[34]

Soon after the Consensus was published (1551) a radical Lutheran pastor, Joachim Westphal, accused Calvin of embracing the Zwinglian position and rejecting the Augustana variata.[35] In the struggle which followed Calvin looked to Melanchthon for support, but his cautious friend remained silent.[36] During this period Calvin sent several letters to Melanchthon urging him to support his cause. His letters are filled with challenges to his older friend to speak out against Westphal.

In August, 1554 he wrote:

Whatever method of reconciling our differences it shall please you to adopt, that I will gladly embrace. Behold how illiterate and turbulent men are renewing the sacramentarian quarrel from your quarter. All good men lament and complain that these same individuals are encouraged by your silence. For however audacious ignorance is, still nobody doubts, if you could bring your mind to speak out openly what you think, but that it would be an easy task for you to appease, at least in part, their violence.[37]

In October Melanchthon replied to Calvin’s call for a conference:

In regard to the exhortation contained in your last letter to me, to repress the ignorant clamours of those who are renewing the contest about the adoration of the bread, know that certain persons are raising this dispute principally from hatred to me, that they may have a plausible reason for oppressing me. I have had many conferences with learned and good men on many contested points…. On these matters so highly important, I should like exceedingly to converse with you, whom I know to be a lover of truth, and to have a mind exempt from hatred and other foolish affections…. I do not despair of our having a conference before my soul departs from its earthly prison. For though, by reason of my advanced age, I am not far from the goal of this career, yet I am in daily expectation of being anew exiled.[38]

Jules Bonnet suggests that this reply may have caused Calvin to become more reserved in his criticism of the German.[39]

This moderation can be noted in March 1555 as Calvin appealed to Melanchthon on the basis of his Christian discipleship:

Though it should not be easy for you to bridle such wild beasts, which however I think is a groundless fear, would you only boldly set about it, you know however that our duties by no means depend on our hopes of success, but that it behooves us to accomplish what God requires of us, even when we are in the greatest despair respecting the results. For what are we to expect from the servants of Christ, unless, in despite of ill-will, and contemplating malicious rumours, they overcome by their victorious constancy whatever obstacles Satan may raise up against them?[40]

In 1556 Calvin wrote his Second Reply to Westphal in which he speaks of long and thoughtful consideration of the question of the eucharist.[41] In a letter to Melanchthon in August 1557 Calvin again called for a conference, and warned that unless the German spoke soon he might lose his influence, or death could possibly prevent his declaration in Calvin’s behalf.[42] The words were prophetic, for soon Calvin admitted that the anti-Melanchthonians were so powerful in Germany that should his friend speak the effect would be insignificant.[43]

Calvin’s letter to Melanchthon in November 1558 seems to reflect this conviction. In it Calvin appears more anxious to comfort and to support his aging friend than to challenge him to action. Calvin laments the continued attacks upon Melanchthon by his ungrateful students, and reminds him that this rejection seems to be the lot of many. He calls Melanchthon “a man who had discharged with the highest fidelity and diligence the functions of a teacher, and also deserved the highest honors from the whole church.”[44] In view of a possible persecution of all evangelicals by the forces of the pope and emperor, Calvin called for a renewed affirmation of their friendship.

Whatever happens, let us cultivate with sincerity a fraternal affection towards each other, of which no wiles of Satan shall ever burst asunder the ties…by no slight shall my mind ever be alienated from that holy friendship and respect which I have vowed to you.[45]

Soon after this letter Melanchthon’s health began to fail, due to age, the sudden death of his wife Katherine, and the onslaught of his enemies. Early in April 1560, after a severe change in the weather, be became ill. On April 19, in the company of his friends, Philip Melanchthon died at the age of sixty-three.[46]

A year later Calvin’s grief and affection could still be discerned as he wrote:

O Philip Melanchthon! I appeal to thee who now livest with Christ in the bosom of God, and there art waiting for us till we shall be gathered with thee to that blessed rest. A hundred times, when worn out with labors and oppressed with so many troubles, didst thou repose thy head familiarly on my breast and say: would that I could die in this bosom! Since then I have a thousand times wished that it had been granted to us to live together; for certainly thou wouldst thus have had more courage for the inevitable contest, and been stronger to despise envy, and to count as nothing all accusations. In this manner, also, the malice of many would have been restrained who, from thy gentleness which they call weakness, gathered audacity for their attacks.[47]

Before moving to our evaluation of the friendship of Melanchthon and Calvin, it would be well to sum up this section with the assessment of Leopold Monod: “If it were not rather childish to try to set up a hierarchy of values in such a matter, I would strongly believe that Melanchthon was the man to whom Calvin was most sensitively related.”[48]

* * * * *

At the turn of the century careful studies concerning Melanchthon were rare. Only recently have historians looked beneath the charges of traitor and coward to discover the truly evangelical theologian. Tragically, Melanchthon’s reputation has suffered, not simply because his enemies were vocal, but because they also wrote histories. Jaroslav Pelikan comments that this was but “another case of a thinker’s being condemned by those who owed him much, but apparently not their gratitude.”[49] Even Philip Schaff’s treatment of the friendship of Melanchthon and Calvin seems to be heavily weighted in favor of the Genevan. Undoubtedly the most helpful, and possibly trend-setting, treatment of Melanchthon to appear recently has been Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer by Clyde L. Manschreck. Professor Manschreck, while not ignoring Melanchthon’s weaknesses, has provided a clear image of the reformer’s character. No inquiry into the friendship of Melanchthon and Calvin would have meaning without an understanding of Melanchthon’s struggles with Luther, his contemporaries, and himself provided by this book. It has created a climate of openness in which an article such as this may be written.

The friendship of Melanchthon and Calvin challenges our presuppositions. Melanchthon’s actions are not so much those of one who lacked courage or steadfastness of doctrine, as they are those of one for whom peace, harmony, and respect were important virtues. At the same time, a very human picture of Calvin emerges. Thus omnibus statements concerning Calvin such as the following, certainly become suspect: “It is as if he were never in need or want, nor were ever unfulfilled. He has friends but no friendships.”[50]

Superficially we might question the wisdom of Calvin in seeking to maintain his friendship with the seemingly less than loyal Melanchthon. Yet Calvin saw the potential of his friend. Calvin’s touching address to the departed Melanchthon suggested that the Genevan considered that his friend needed only encouragement to be as courageous as he himself. While Melanchthon’s reserve cannot be explained totally as lack of courage, Merle D’Aubigné suggests that, at least at Ratisbon, Melanchthon displayed more energy and persuasiveness before the Roman theologians because of the presence of Calvin.[51]

This friendship demonstrates the possibility of harmony in spite of theological differences. While in his earliest theological writings Melanchthon accepted a view of the human will which was in harmony with that of Luther, by 1530 he had rejected the doctrine which he had set forth earlier.[52] Free will and predestination were, of course, crucial in Calvin’s thought, yet they remained friends in spite of recognized differences. A. Mitchell Hunter offers two reasons for this openness on Calvin’s part:

first, he did not believe that any competent theologian could actually reject the doctrine; and second, he opposed only those who made its rejection an issue of contention.[53] As related earlier, in 1545 Melanchthon considered their differences concerning free will to be only slight. They held too much truth in common to be divided.

The most important factor for the Reformation effort was the fact that in his friendship with Melanchthon, Calvin was closely related to the leader of the German Reformation after the death of Luther. To be sure, as party strife began to develop Melanchthon lost prestige, but he remained an important link to the other center of Reformation activity in Europe.

Notes

1. Melanchthon’s brilliance in linguistics was first noted by his private childhood tutor, John Unger; and later by his great-uncle John Reuchlin, the greatest Hebraist of his age, and foremost authority in Europe on Jewish literature. As a student in Reuchlin’s school Melanchthon learned to love the ancient languages, and became acquainted with neoplatonism. The broad scholarship inspired by Reuchlin prepared his nephew to enter the University of Heidelberg in 1509 at age thirteen. See Myron P. Gilmore: The World of Humanism, 1453–1517, pp. 197f; and C. S. Meyer, “Christian Humanism and the Reformation,” Concordia Theological Monthly, Nov., ‘70.
2. C. L. Hill, “Introduction,” The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon, Boston: Meander Publishing Company, 1944, p. 23.
3. C. L. Manschreck, Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1958, p. 41.
4. Quoted by F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961, p. 341.
5. Eric Routley, Creeds and Confessions, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962, pp. 13-14.
6. This was the preliminary conference prior to the Frankfort Reichstag of April, 1539. Williston Walker, John Calvin, Schocken Books Inc., 1969, p. 238.
7. According to Florimund de Raemond Calvin was advised by Lefevre d’Etaples to consider the Loci in formulating his position (Kilian McDonnell, John Ca1vin, the Church, and the Eucharist, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 95). A. Lang argues persuasively that the first edition of The Institutes reveals heavy dependence in form and content upon Melanchthon’s work. A. Lang, “Sources of Calvin’s Institutes of 1536,” The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 8, #2 (1936).
8. The Letters of John Calvin, Vol. I, Jules Bonnet, ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1972, p. 129. Hereafter designated LJC(B).
9. Walker, p. 239.
10. Ibid.
11. Like Calvin, Melanchthon insisted that the Scriptures are the only source of theology; they have a redemptive purpose (R. D. Preus, “Melanchthon the Theologian,” Concordia Theological Monthly, August, 1960). Melanchthon’s use of the classics in his school differed from Calvin’s. In Calvin’s school the Bible was the primary text, and in Melanchthon’s school the classics were studied to unlock the biblical languages. C. L. Manschreck, “The Bible in Melanchthon’s Philosophy of Education,” Journal of Biblical Religion, July, 1955.
12. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950, p. 386.
13. Manschreck, op. cit., p. 267.
14. Walker, p. 241.
15. LJC(B), p. 374.
16. John Calvin: Selections from His Writings, John Dillenberger, ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971, p. 49. This letter does not appear in the Bonnet collection.
17. Schaff, p. 386.
18. Ibid., p. 385.
19. Ibid., pp. 391-2.
20. Ibid., p. 393.
21. Ibid., p. 289.
22. “He felt that he could not teach that for which support was lacking from the era of the early church. Melanchthon did not believe, however, that tradition is on the same level as Scripture. He rather thought of tradition only as the means whereby the revelation has come to us…. Therefore the greatest weight is to be attached to the oldest tradition” (B. Hagglund, History of Theology, G. Lund, trans., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing Company, 1968, p. 253; cf. Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon, Geneva: Librairie E. Droz, 1961). For Calvin the Scriptures served not only as the source of theology, but also as the limiting factor of his theology; for Melanchthon they served as the source of theology, and the Fathers served as a limiting factor. Both wished to limit the possibility of speculation.
23. LJC(B), Vol. I, pp. 466-7.
24. “This is the only example of a Reformer republishing and recommending the work of another Reformer, which was the only formidable rival of his own chief work on the same subject (the Institutes), and differed from it in several points”: Schaff, p. 393.
25. Manschreck, p. 278.
26. Ibid., p. 285.
27. Ibid., p. 287.
28. Ibid., p. 289.
29. LJC(B), Vol. II, p. 272.
30. Schaff, p. 396.
31. Quoted by Walker, p. 343.
32. Quoted by Joseph Lecler, Toleration and the Reformation, Vol. I, T. L. Westow, trans., New York: Association Press, pp. 247-4.
33. Walker, p. 397.
34. Ibid.
35. John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1957, p. 199.
36. Walker, p. 398.
37. LJC(B), Vol. III, p. 62.
38. Quoted by Bonnet, LJC(B), Vol. III, p. 61.
39. Ibid.
40. LJC(B), Vol. III, p. 157.
41. Walker, p. 76.
42. LJC(B), Vol. III, p. 335.
43. McNeill, p. 199.
44. LJC(B), Vol. III, P. 484.
45. Ibid.
46. Manschreck, p. 318.
47. Schaff, p. 398.
48. Richard Stauffer, The Humanness of John Calvin, G. G. Shriver, trans., Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.
49. Jaroslav Pelikan, Historical Theology: Continuity and Change in Christian Doctrine, London: Hutchinson, 1971, p. 24.
50. Dillenberger, p. 10.
51. J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation in Europe, Vol. VII, W. L. R. Cates, trans., London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1876, p. 22.
52. Hagglund, p. 250. The evolution of Melanchthon’s view of the will may be discerned through the several editions of the Loci Communes. In 1521 he wrote: “Seeing that all things that happen, happen necessarily according to divine predestination, there is no freedom of the human will” (Loci Communes, C. L. Hill, trans., pp: 72–3). In 1535 he recognized three causes of conversion: The Word, the Spirit, and the human will (R. Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines, C. E. Hay, trans., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966, p. 349). And in 1543 he suggested that “God anticipates us, calls, moves, aids; but we must see to it that we do not resist” (Quoted by Seeberg, p. 349).
53. Hunter, pp. 95f.