Philip Melancthon said to Luther, The opinion of St. Austin of justification (as it seemeth) was more pertinent, fit and convenient when he disputed not, than it was when he used to speak and dispute; for thus he saith, We ought to censure and hold that we are justified by faith, that is by our regeneration, or by being made new creatures.  Now if it be so, then we are not justified only by faith, but by all the gifts and virtues of God given unto us.  Now what is your opinion Sir?  Do you hold that a man is justified by this regeneration, as is St. Austin’s opinion?

Luther answered and said, I hold this, and am certain, that the true meaning of the Gospel and of the Apostle is, that we are justified before God ‘gratis’, for nothing, only by God’s mere mercy, wherewith and by reason whereof, he imputeth righteousness unto us in Christ.

True; but is it more than a dispute about words?  Is not the regeneration likewise ‘gratis’, only by God’s mere mercy?  We, according to the necessity of our imperfect understandings, must divide and distinguish.  But surely justification and sanctification are one act of God, and only different perspectives of redemption by and through and for Christ.  They are one and the same plant, justification the root, sanctification the flower; and (may I not venture to add?) transubstantiation into Christ the celestial fruit.

Ib. p. 210-11.  Melancthon’s sixth reply.

Sir! you say Paul was justified, that is, was received to everlasting life, only for mercy’s sake.  Against which, I say, if the piece-meal or partial cause, namely our obedience, followeth not; then we are not saved, according to these words, ’Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel’. 1.  Cor. ix.

Luther’s answer.

No piecing or partial cause (said Luther) approacheth thereupto:  for faith is powerful continually without ceasing; otherwise, it is no faith.  Therefore what the works are, or of what value, the same they are through the honor and power of faith, which undeniably is the sun or sun-beam of this shining.

This is indeed a difficult question; and one, I am disposed to think, which can receive its solution only by the idea, or the act and fact of justification by faith self-reflected.  But, humanly considered, this position of Luther’s provokes the mind to ask, is there no receptivity of faith, considered as a free gift of God, prerequisite in the individual?  Does faith commence by generating the receptivity of itself?  If so, there is no difference either in kind or in degree between the receivers and the rejectors of the word, at the moment preceeding this reception or rejection; and a stone is a subject as capable of faith as a man.  How can obedience exist, where disobedience was not possible?  Surely two or three texts from St. Paul, detached from the total ‘organismus’ of his reasoning, ought not to out-weigh the plain fact, that the contrary position is implied in, or is an immediate consequent of, our Lord’s own invitations and assurances.  Every where a something is attributed to the will. [2]