Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Part 16

Flacius, in particular, maintained that under the prevailing circ.u.mstances even such ceremonies as were in themselves true adiaphora ceased to be adiaphora and could not be reintroduced with a good conscience, because they were forced upon the Lutherans by the enemies of the Gospel, because they were accepted for reprehensible reasons, such as fear of persecution and desire for external peace, and because their reintroduction confounded the consciences, offended the weak, and gave comfort and encouragement to the enemies of Christ. The people, Protestants as well as Catholics, said Flacius, would regard such reintroduction both as an admission on the part of the Lutherans that they had been in the wrong and the Romanists in the right, and as the beginning of a general restoration of the Papacy. Explain the reintroduction of the ceremonies as piously as you may, said he to the Interimists, the common people, especially the Romanists, always impressed by ceremonies much more than by the doctrine, will infer that those teachers who reintroduce the ceremonies approve of the Papacy in every respect and reject the Evangelical doctrine. In his book _De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris_ we read: "Adversarii totum suum cultum, vel certe praecipua capita suae religionis in ceremoniis collocant, quas c.u.m in nostris ecclesiis in eorum gratiam rest.i.tuimus, an non videmur tum eis, tum aliis eorum impiis cultibus a.s.sentiri? Nec dubitant, quin quandoquidem in tantis rebus ipsis cesserimus, etiam in reliquis cessuri simus, nostrum errorem agnoscamus, eorumque religionem veram esse confiteamur." (Schluesselburg 13, 217.) Accordingly, Flacius contended that under the prevailing circ.u.mstances a concession to the Romanists, even in ceremonies harmless in themselves, was tantamount to a denial of Lutheranism. The entire argument of the Anti-Adiaphorists was by him reduced to the following principle or axiom: "_Nihil est adiaphoron in casu confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron when confession and offense are involved." And wherever the Interim was enforced, the consequences foretold by Flacius showed themselves: consciences were confused, simple Christians were offended, and the enemies were strengthened in their error and emboldened in their attacks and in further demands made upon the Lutherans.

140. Sophistries of Adiaphorists Refuted.

The Wittenberg Interimists endeavored to justify their att.i.tude by a series of sophisms to which they also adhered in the "Final Report (Endlicher Bericht) of the Theologians of Both Universities of Leipzig and Wittenberg," 1570. (Frank 4, 87. 2.) By adopting the Interim, the Wittenbergers, in reality, had a.s.sented also to doctrinally false and dubious statements and to a number of ceremonies objectionable as such.

Yet they pleaded the guilelessness of their intentions and the harmlessness of their procedure. They maintained that they had yielded merely in minor matters and ceremonies, which were neither commanded nor prohibited by the Word of G.o.d; that this was done in order to preserve intact the central Christian truth of justification; to preserve political peace and to save the Church from ruin; to protect the weak, whose shoulders were not strong enough to suffer persecution; that in their concessions they had been guided by the dictates of true wisdom, which always chooses the lesser of two evils; and that in all this they had merely followed the example set by Luther himself. They minimized the entire affair, and endeavored to explain away the seriousness of the situation. In particular they ridiculed Flacius for shouting and sounding the fire-alarm when in reality, they said, he had discovered nothing but a little smoke coming from a Wittenberg chimney.

But in the ears of all genuine and earnest Lutherans their sophistries and apologies rang neither true nor sincere. The arguments which they employed merely served to defeat their own purpose. What else, for example, than disgust, indignation, and distrust could be the effect on all honest Lutherans when the Wittenberg theologians, dishonestly veiling the real facts, declared in their official "Exposition" of 1559 (when danger of persecution had pa.s.sed long ago) concerning the reintroduction of Corpus Christi that they had reintroduced this festival all the more readily in order that they might be able to instruct the people in the right use of the Sacrament and in the horrible abuses and profanations of the most holy Supper of the Lord in the circ.u.mgestation and adoration of the bread which their critics [the Lutheran opponents of the Interimists, by their doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper] strengthened and that they might thank G.o.d for the purification of the temple from the Romish idol Maozim, Dan. 11, 38.

(Tschackert, 510.) Frank remarks: "One must see this pa.s.sage black on white in order to believe the Wittenbergers really capable of stultifying themselves in such an incredible manner. It is a monstrosity, a defense unworthy of an honest man, let alone an Evangelical Christian." (4, 61. 113.)

The weak and insincere arguments of the Adiaphorists were thoroughly and convincingly refuted by their opponents. To the a.s.sertion of the Wittenbergers that the dispute was concerning mere unimportant ceremonies which were neither commanded nor prohibited by G.o.d, Flacius and Gallus replied (in their answer to the question of the ministers of Meissen whether they should leave their charges rather than don the _Chorrock, lineam vestem induere_) that even with respect to such seemingly most trifling adiaphora as the cope (_Chorrock, vestis alba_) one must not overlook what is attached to it. "We do not believe," they said, "that the robber will let the traveler keep his money, although first he only asks for his coat or similar things, at the same time, however, not obscurely hinting that, after having taken these, he will also demand the rest. We certainly do not doubt that you yourselves, as well as all men endowed with a sound mind, believe that, since the beginning is always hardest, these small beginnings of changes are at present demanded only that a door may be opened for all the other impieties that are to follow--_quod tantum ideo parva ista mutationum initia iam proponantur, ut quia principia semper sunt dificillima per ea aditus reliquis omnibus secuturis impietatibus patefiat._"

(Schluesselburg 13, 644.)

The Adiaphorists pretended that they had consented to the Interim in the interest of the weak, who were unable to bear persecution. But the Lutherans answered that weak Christians could not be strengthened in their faith by teaching and persuading them to deny it and that the enemies and persecutors of the Gospel could certainly not be regarded as weak. (Frank 4, 78.) The protestations of the Adiaphorists that they had made the changes in ceremonies with the very best of intentions were answered by Flacius in _De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris_ as follows: Hardly ever has a Christian denied Christ without endeavoring to deceive both G.o.d and himself as to his motives. "But one must also consider, as may be clearly shown from 1 Cor. 10, with what design (_quo animo_) the adversaries propose such things to us, likewise, how they as well as others interpret our act." (Schl. 13, 217.) "Even though the intention of those who receive and use the adiaphora be not an evil one, the question is," said Martin Chemnitz in his _Iudicium de Adiaphoris,_ "whether the opinion of the one who commands, imposes, and demands the adiaphora is impious or wicked, whether such reception and observation is interpreted and understood as a turning away from the confession of the true doctrine, and whether the weak are offended and grow faint thereby." (717.)

To the claims of the Interimists that they were but following the example of Luther, who, for the sake of the weak, had tolerated Romish ceremonies, etc., the Lutherans replied: Distinguish times and conditions! Luther was dealing with Christians who in their consciences still felt bound to the Roman usages, while the "weakness" spoken of by Adiaphorists is not an erring conscience, but fear of persecution.

Moreover Luther tolerated existing Romish ceremonies as long as there was hope of arriving at an agreement with the Romanists in doctrine, while the Adiaphorists reinst.i.tute ceremonies which have been abolished, and this, too, in deference and obedience to irreconcilable adversaries of the truth. Accordingly, Luther's att.i.tude in this matter flowed from pure love for truth and from compa.s.sion with the weak, whom he endeavored to win for the truth, while the submission of the Adiaphorists to the demands of their adversaries is nothing short of unchristian denial of both true love and faith. (Frank 4, 55.) Brenz declared: "_Adiaphora ex suis conditionibus iudicanda sunt._ Adiaphora must be judged from their conditions. For if the condition is good, the adiaphoron, too, is good, and its observance is commanded. If, however, the condition is evil, the adiaphoron, too, is evil, and the observance of it is prohibited." (Schl. 13, 562.)

Furthermore, when the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians maintained that, in preferring the lesser evil (the Roman ceremonies) to the greater (persecution), they had merely listened to, and followed, the voice of true wisdom, the Lutherans replied that moral evils must not be placed on a level with physical evils, nor guilt be incurred in order to avoid suffering and persecution. Westphal declared in his _Explicatio Generalis Sententiae, quod a Duobus Malis Minus sit Eligendum: "Impium est, amoliri pericula per peccata, nec ita removentur aut minuuntur sed accersuntur et augentur poenae._ It is wicked to avert dangers by sins, nor are they removed or diminished in this way, but rather superinduced and increased." (13, 251.) "It is better to take upon oneself punishments and great dangers than to offend G.o.d and to provoke His wrath by such offense." (250.) "It is better and easier to bear many evils and to undergo many dangers than to be unfaithful in the least commandment of G.o.d, and burden oneself with the guilt of even a single sin." (251.) Our paramount duty is not to escape persecution, but to retain a good conscience. Obey the Lord and await His help! Such was the counsel of Flacius and the loyal Lutherans. (Frank 4, 65.)

But our Wittenberg school will be closed, our churches will be desolated, and our preachers will be banished, exclaimed the faint-hearted Wittenbergers. The Lutherans answered: It is our duty to confess the truth regardless of consequences, and, at the same time, to look to G.o.d for the protection of His Church. Flacius said, in _De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris:_ Confess the truth and suffer the consequences! A Christian cannot obtain peace by offending G.o.d and serving and satisfying tyrants. Rather be drowned by the Spaniards in the Elbe with a millstone about one's neck than offend a Christian, deny the truth, and surrender the Church to Satan. "Longe satius esset teste Christo pati, ut alligata mola asinaria in medium Albis ab Hispanis proiiceremur, quam _unic.u.m_ parvulum Christi scandalizaremus, multo vero magis haec et quaevis gravissima pati deberemus, quam _tam infinitis_ (ut iam fit) Christi parvulis offendiculum daremus, ecclesiam Satanae proderemus et salvificam confessionem veritatis abiiceremus." (Schl. 13, 227.)

As to the Wittenberg School, Flacius said: "It would certainly be better that the school were closed not one, but many years than that we, by avoiding confession, extremely weaken our own religion as well as strengthen the one opposed to it." (13, 231.) "As for myself, I do not doubt that, if only the theologians had been steadfast, the Wittenberg School would have been to-day much firmer than it is.... The Interim sprang from the timidity of the Wittenberg theologians.... Even a thousand Wittenberg schools ought certainly not to be valued so highly by pious men that, in order to preserve them unimpaired, they would rather suffer the world to be deprived of the light of the Gospel.

_Certe non tanti mille Wittenbergenses scholae piis esse debent, ut propter earum incolumitatem velint pati orbem terrarum Evangelii luce privari._" (232.) In a letter to Melanchthon, written in the beginning of 1549, Brenz said: "If therefore the Church and pious ministers cannot be preserved in any other way than by bringing reproach upon the pious doctrine, then let us commend them to Christ, the Son of G.o.d; He will take care of them; and in the mean time let us patiently bear our banishment and wait for the Lord." (_C. R._ 7, 290.)

June 30, 1530, Luther had written to Melanchthon, who was then in Augsburg: "You want to govern things according to your philosophy; you torment yourself and do not see that this matter is not within your power and wisdom.... If we fall, Christ, that is to say, the Ruler of the world, falls with us; and even though He should fall, I would rather fall with Christ than stand with the Emperor." This pa.s.sage is contained in one of the letters of Luther which Flacius published 1548 in order to dispel Melanchthon's timidity, rouse his Lutheran consciousness, and cure him of his vain and most dangerous disposition to save the Church by human wisdom and shrewdness, instead of, as Luther believed, solely by a bold confession of the truth of G.o.d's Word.

141. Theological Att.i.tude of Flacius Sanctioned.

The theological position which Flacius and his fellow-combatants occupied over against the Adiaphorists was embodied in the Tenth Article of the _Formula of Concord,_ and thus endorsed by the Lutheran Church as a whole. Frank says concerning this most excellent article which our Church owes to the faithfulness of the Anti-Melanchthonians, notably Flacius: "The theses which received churchly recognition in the _Formula of Concord_ were those of Flacius." The entire matter, too, concerning the adiaphora had been discussed so thoroughly and correctly that the subsequent formulation and recognition of the Tenth Article caused but little difficulties. (Frank 4, 3f.)

Even Melanchthon, though refusing to confess that he was guilty of any doctrinal deviations, finally yielded to the arguments of his opponents and admitted that they were right in teaching as they did regarding the adiaphora. In his famous letter to Flacius (who, however, was not satisfied with the manner of Melanchthon's retraction), dated September 5, 1556, he wrote with respect to the Adiaphoristic Controversy: "I knew that even the least changes [in ceremonies] would be unwelcome to the people. However, since the doctrine [?] was retained, I would rather have our people submit to this servitude than forsake the ministry of the Gospel. _c.u.m doctrina retineretur integra, malui nostros hanc servitutem subire quam deserere ministerium evangelii._ And I confess that I have given the same advice to the Francans (_Francis_). This I have done; the doctrine of the Confession I have never changed....

Afterwards you began to contradict. I yielded; I did not fight. In Homer, Ajax fighting with Hector is satisfied when Hector yields and admits that the former is victor. You never come to an end with your accusations. Where is the enemy that does such a thing as striking those who yield and cast their arms away? Win! I yield. I do not contend concerning those rites, and I most earnestly wish that the churches would enjoy sweet concord. I also admit that I have sinned in this matter, and ask forgiveness of G.o.d, that I did not flee far from those insidious deliberations [in which the Interim was framed]. _Fateor hoc in re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi insidiosas illas deliberationes_." (_C. R._ 8, 839.)

On January 17, 1557, Melanchthon wrote to the Saxon pastors: "I was drawn into the insidious deliberations of the courts. Therefore, if in any way I have either fallen or been too weak, I ask forgiveness of G.o.d and of the Church, and I shall submit to the judgments of the Church."

(9, 61.) In the _Formula Consensus,_ written by Melanchthon at Worms, in 1557, the Interim is expressly condemned. For here we read: "With the help of G.o.d we retain, and shall retain, the entire doctrine of justification, agreeing with the Augsburg Confession and with the confessions which were published in the church of Hamburg against the book called Interim. Nor do we want any corruptions or ambiguities to be mixed with it; and we desire most earnestly that the true doctrine in all its articles be set forth, as far as possible, in identical and proper forms of speech, and that ambitious innovations be avoided." (9, 369.) The _Frankfurt Recess_ of 1558, also written by Melanchthon and signed by the princes, maintains: "Where the true Christian doctrine of the holy Gospel is polluted or persecuted, there the adiaphora as well as other ceremonies are detrimental and injurious." (9, 501.)

XIII. The Majoristic Controversy.

142. Early Origin of This Error.

Though not personally mentioned and attacked by the opponents of Majorism, Melanchthon must be regarded as the real father also of this controversy. He was the first to introduce and to cultivate the phrase: "Good works are necessary to salvation." In his _Loci_ of 1535 he taught that, in the article of justification, good works are the _causa sine qua non_ and are necessary to salvation, _ad vitam aeternam, ad salutem._ (Herzog, _R. E._, 1903, 12, 519; Galle, _Melanchthon,_ 345.

134.) Melanchthon defined: "_Causa sine qua non_ works nothing, nor is it a const.i.tuent part but merely something without which the effect does not occur, or by which, if it were not present, the working cause would be hindered because it was not added. _Causa sine qua non nihil agit, nec est pars const.i.tuens, sed tantum est quiddam, sine quo non fit effectus, seu quo, si non adesset, impediretur agens, ideo quia illud non accessisset."_ (Preger 1, 356.) According to Melanchthon, therefore, justification cannot occur without the presence of good works. He explained: "_Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam aeternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent._ Nevertheless good works are necessary to eternal life, inasmuch as they must necessarily follow reconciliation." (_C. R._ 21, 429. 775.) According to the context in which it is found, this statement includes that good works are necessary also to justification; for Melanchthon, too, correctly held "that the adoption to eternal life or the gift of eternal life was connected with justification, that is, the reconciliation imparted to faith." (453.)

At Wittenberg Melanchthon's efforts to introduce the new formula met with energetic opposition, especially on the part of Cordatus and Amsdorf. The formula: "_Bona opera non quidem esse causam efficientem salutis, sed tamen causam sine qua non_--Good works are indeed not the efficient cause of salvation, but nevertheless an indispensable cause,"

a necessary antecedent, was launched in a lecture delivered July 24, 1536, by a devoted pupil of Melanchthon, Caspar Cruciger, Sr. [born at Leipzig, January 1, 1504; professor in Wittenberg; a.s.sisted Luther in translating the Bible and in taking down his lectures and sermons; present at colloquies in Marburg 1529, in Wittenberg 1536, in Smalcald 1537, in Worms and Hagenau 1540 in Regensburg 1541, in Augsburg 1548; died November 16, 1548]. According to Ratzeberger, Cruciger had dictated: "_Bona opera requiri ad salutem tamquam causam sine qua non._"

Cordatus reports Cruciger's dictation as follows: "_Tantum Christus est causa propter quem; interim tamen verum est, homines agere aliquid oportere; oportere nos habere contritionem et debere Verbo erigere conscientiam, ut fidem concipiamus, ut nostra contritio et noster conatus sunt causae iustificationis sine quibus non_--our contrition and our endeavor are causes of justification without which it does not take place." (3, 350.)

Cordatus immediately attacked the new formula as false. "I know," said he, "that this duality of causes cannot stand with the simple article of justification." (3, 350.) He demanded a public retraction from Cruciger.

Before long Amsdorf also entered the fray. September 14, 1536, he wrote to Luther about the new-fangled teaching of Melanchthon, "that works are necessary to eternal life." (3, 162; Luther, St. L. 21b, 4104.) Pressed by Cordatus, Cruciger finally admitted that Melanchthon was back of the phrases he had dictated. He declared that he was the pupil of Mr.

Philip; that the entire dictation was Mr. Philip's; that by him he had been led into this matter; and that he did not know how it happened. _Se esse D. Philippi discipulum, et dictata omnia esse D. Philippi, se ab eo in illam rem traductum, et nescire quomodo._" [tr. note: no opening quotation mark in original] (_C. R._ 3, 162.)

That Melanchthon had been making efforts to introduce the new phrases in Wittenberg appears from the pa.s.sage in his _Loci_ of 1535 quoted above, and especially from his letters of the two following years. November 5, 1536, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Cordatus incites the city, its neighborhood, and even the Court against me because in the explanation of the controversy on justification I have said that new obedience is necessary to salvation, _novam obedientiam necessariam esse ad salutem._" (185. 179.) May 16, 1537, Veit Dietrich wrote to Forester: "Our Cordatus, driven, I know not, by what furies, writes against Philip and Cruciger as against heretics, and is determined to force Cruciger to retract because he has said that good works are necessary to salvation.... This matter worries Philip very much, and if certain malicious men do not control themselves, he threatens to leave." (372.) As for Melanchthon, he made no efforts to s.h.i.+rk the responsibility for Cruciger's dictation. "_Libenter totam rem in me transfero_--I cheerfully transfer the entire affair to myself" he wrote April 15, 1537. Yet he was worried much more than his words seem to indicate.

(342.)

Complaints against the innovations of Melanchthon and Cruciger were also lodged with Luther by Cordatus, Amsdorf, and Stiefel. Cordatus reports Luther as saying after the matter had been related to him, October 24, 1536: "This is the very theology of Erasmus, nor can anything be more opposed to our doctrine. _Haec est ipsissima theologia Erasmi, neque potest quidquam nostrae doctrinae esse magis adversum._" To say that new obedience is the "_causa sine qua non--sine qua non contingit vita aeterna,_" Luther declared, was tantamount to treading Christ and His blood under our feet. "_Cruciger autem haec, quae publice dictavit, publice revocabit._ What he has publicly dictated, Cruciger shall publicly retract." (Kolde, _a.n.a.lecta,_ 266.)

According to Ratzeberger, Luther immediately warned and censured Cruciger "in severe terms." (_C. R._ 4, 1038.) Flacius reports that Luther had publicly declared more than five times: "_Propositionem: Bona opera esse necessaria ad salutem, volumus d.a.m.natam, abrogatam, ex ecclesiis et scholis nostris penitus explosam._" (Schluesselburg 7, 567.) After his return from Smalcald, where he had expressed grave fears as to the future doctrinal soundness of his Wittenberg colleagues, Luther, in a public disputation on June 1, 1537 "exploded and condemned"

the teaching that good works are necessary to salvation, or necessary to salvation as a _causa sine qua non_. (_Lehre u. Wehre_ 1908, 65.) Both parties were present at the disputation, Cordatus as well as Melanchthon and Cruciger. In a letter to Veit Dietrich, June 27, 1537, Cruciger reports: Luther maintained that new obedience is an "effect necessarily following justification," but he rejected the statement: "New obedience is necessary to salvation, _necessariam ad salutem._" He adds: "_Male hoc habuit nostrum [Melanchthon], sed noluit eam rem porro agitare._ Melanchthon was displeased with this, but he did not wish to agitate the matter any further." (_C. R._ 3, 385.) After the disputation Cruciger was handed an anonymous note, saying that his "Treatise on Timothy" was now branded as "heretical, sacrilegious, impious, and blasphemous (_haeretica, sacrilega, impia et blasphema_)," and unless he retracted, he would have to be regarded as a Papist, a teacher and servant of Satan and not of Christ, and that his dictations would be published. (387.) In a letter to Dietrich, Cruciger remarks that Luther had disapproved of this anonymous writing, but he adds: "I can't see why he [Luther] gives so much encouragement to Cordatus." (385.)

In private, Luther repeatedly discussed this matter also with Melanchthon. This appears from their Disputation of 1536 on the question: "Whether this proposition is true: The righteousness of works is necessary to salvation." (E. 58, 353.) In a letter to Dietrich of June 22, 1537, Melanchthon, in substance, refers as follows to his discussions with Luther: I am desirous of maintaining the unity of the Wittenberg Academy; in this matter I also employ some art; nor does Luther seem to be inimical; yesterday he spoke to me in a very kind manner on the questions raised by Quadratus [Cordatus]. What a spectacle if the Lutherans would oppose each other as the Cadmean brethren! I will therefore modify whatever I can. Yet I desire a more thorough exposition of the doctrines of predestination, of the consent of the will, of the necessity of our obedience, and of the sin unto death. (_C. R._ 3, 383.)

A number of private letters written by Melanchthon during and immediately after his conflict with Cordatus, however, reveal much animosity, not only against Cordatus, but against Luther as well. Nor do those written after Luther's disputation, June 1, 1537, indicate that he was then fully cured of his error. (357. 392. 407.) Moreover, in his _Loci_ of 1538 we read: "_Et tamen haec nova spiritualis obedientia (nova spiritualitas) necessaria est ad vitam aeternam._ And nevertheless this new spiritual obedience is necessary to eternal life." (21, 429.) Evidently, then, Melanchthon did not grasp the matter, and was not convinced of the incorrectness of his phraseology. Yet he made it a point to avoid and eliminate from his publications the obnoxious formula: "_Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem._" At any rate, his essay on Justification and Good Works, of October 1537, as well as subsequent publications of his, do not contain it. In the _Loci_ of 1538, just referred to, he replaced the words _bona opera_ by the phrase _obedientia haec nova spiritualis,_--indeed, a purely verbal rather than a doctrinal change. Nor did it reappear even in the _Variata_ of 1540.

In 1541, at Regensburg, Melanchthon consented to the formula "that we are justified by a living and efficacious faith--_iustificari per fidem vivam et efficacem._" But when Luther deleted the words "_et efficacem,_ and efficacious," Melanchthon acquiesced. (4, 499.) In the _Loci_ of 1543 he expunged the appendix "_ad salutem,_ to salvation." At the same time, however, he retained the error in a more disguised form, _viz._, that good works are necessary to retain faith. For among the reasons why good works are necessary he here enumerates also "the necessity of retaining the faith, since the Holy Spirit is expelled and grieved when sins against the conscience are admitted." (21, 775.)

143. Formula Renewed--Abandoned.

Under the duress of the Augsburg Interim, Melanchthon relapsed into his old error. July 6, 1548, he (together with Caspar Cruciger, John Pfeffinger, Daniel Gresser, George Major, and John Foerster) agreed to the statement: "For this proposition is certainly true that no one can be saved without love and good works. Yet we are not justified by love and good works, but by grace for Christ's sake." (7, 22.) In the Leipzig Interim, adopted several months later, the false teaching concerning the necessity of good works to salvation was fully restored, as appears from the quotations from this doc.u.ment cited in the chapter on the Adiaphoristic Controversy. According to the _Formula of Concord_ this renewal of the obnoxious formula at the time of the Interim furnished the direct occasion for the Majoristic Controversy. For here we read: "The aforesaid modes of speech and false expressions [concerning the necessity of good works to salvation] were renewed by the Interim just at a time when there was special need of a clear, correct confession against all sorts of corruptions and adulterations of the article of justification." (947, 29.) However, when the controversy on good works began, and George Major zealously championed the restored formula, Melanchthon, probably mindful of his former troubles in this matter, signally failed to support and endorse his friend and colleague.

Moreover, he now advised Major and others to abstain from using the phrase: Good works are necessary to salvation, "because," said he, "this appendix [to salvation, _ad salutem_] is interpreted as merit, and obscures the doctrine of grace."

In an opinion of December, 1553, Melanchthon explains: "New obedience is necessary; ... but when it is said: New obedience is necessary to salvation, the Papists understand that good works merit salvation. This proposition is false, therefore I relinquish this mode of speech." (_C.

R._ 8, 194.) January 13, 1555, he wrote to the Senate of Nordhausen that their ministers "should not preach, defend, and dispute the proposition [Good works are necessary to salvation], because it would immediately be interpreted to mean that good works merit salvation--_weil doch alsbald diese Deutung angehaengt wird, als sollten gute Werke Verdienst sein der Seligkeit._" (410.) September 5, 1556, he said in his letter to Flacius: "I have always admonished George [Major] not only to explain his sentence (which he did), but to abandon that form of speech. And he promised that he would not use it. What more can I ask? The same I did with others." (842.)

In the Frankfurt Recess of 1558, written by Melanchthon and signed by the Lutheran princes, we read: "Although therefore this proposition, 'New obedience is necessary (_Nova obedientia est necessaria, nova obedientia est debitum_),' must be retained, we nevertheless do not wish to attach these words, '_ad salutem,_ to salvation,' because this appendix is interpreted as referring to merit and obscures the doctrine of grace, for this remains true that man is justified before G.o.d and is an heir of eternal salvation by grace, for the sake of the Lord Christ, by faith in Him only." (9, 497. 405.) In an opinion written November 13, 1559, Melanchthon (together with Paul Eber, Pfeffinger, and H. Salmut) again declared: "I say clearly that I do not employ the phrase, 'Good works are necessary to salvation.'" (969.) In his _Responsiones ad Articulos Bavaricos_ of 1559 he wrote: "_Ego non utor his verbis: Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia hoc additione 'ad salutem'

intelligitur meritum._ I do not use these words: Good works are necessary to salvation, because by the addition 'to salvation' a merit is understood." In his lectures, too, Melanchthon frequently rejected the appendix (to salvation), and warned his pupils not to use the phrase. (4, 543; _Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 78.)

Thus Melanchthon, time and again, disowned the proposition which he himself had first introduced. Nowhere, however, did he reject it or advise against its use because it was inherently erroneous and false as such but always merely because it was subject to abuse and misapprehension,--a qualified rejection which self-evidently could not and did not satisfy his opponents. In an opinion, dated March 4, 1558, Melanchthon refuses to reject flatly the controverted formula, and endeavors to show that it is not in disagreement with the mode of speech employed in the Bible. We read: "Illyricus and his compeers are not satisfied when we say that the appendix [to salvation] is to be omitted on account of the false interpretation given it, but demand that we simply declare the proposition, 'Good works are necessary to salvation,'

to be wrong. Against this it must be considered what also Paul has said, Rom. 10: Confession is made to salvation (_Confessio fit ad salutem_), which Wigand maliciously alters thus: Confession is made concerning salvation (_Confessio fit de salute_). Again, 2 Cor. 7: 'For G.o.dly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation,' Likewise Phil. 2: 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.' Nor do these words sound any differently: 'Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will be saved,' Acts 2, 21. But, they say, one must understand these expressions correctly! That is what we say, too. This disputation however, would be ended if we agreed to eliminate the appendix and rack our brains no further--_da.s.s wir den Anhang ausschliessen und nicht weiter gruebelten._" (9, 474.)

144. Major Champions Error.

The immediate cause of the public controversy concerning the question whether good works are necessary to salvation was George Major, a devoted pupil and adherent of Melanchthon and a most active member of the Wittenberg faculty [Major was born April 25, 1502; 1529 Rector of the school in Magdeburg; 1536 Superintendent in Eisleben; soon after, preacher and professor in Wittenberg; 1544 Rector of the University of Wittenberg; in 1548, at Celle, he, too, submitted to the demands of Maurice, in the Leipzig Interim he merely objected to the insertion of Extreme Unction; 1552 Superintendent in Eisleben; professor in Wittenberg from 1553 until his death in 1574].

"_That Dr. Pommer_ [Bugenhagen] _and Dr. Major have Caused Offense and Confusion._ Nicholas Amsdorf, Exul Christi. Magdeburg, 1551,"--such was the t.i.tle of a publication which appeared immediately prior to Major's appointment as Superintendent in Eisleben. In it Bugenhagen (who died 1558) and Major (of course, Melanchthon could and should have been included) were denounced for their connection with the Leipzig Interim.

Major in particular, was censured for having, in the Interim, omitted the word _sola,_ "alone," in the phrase "_sola fide justificamur,_ we are justified by faith alone," and for having emphasized instead that Christian virtues and good works are meritorious and necessary to salvation. When, as a result of this publication the preachers of Eisleben and Mansfeld refused to recognize Major as their superior the latter promised to justify himself publicly. He endeavored to do so in his _Answer_ published 1552 at Wittenberg, after he had already been dismissed by Count Albrecht as Superintendent of Eisleben. The _Answer_ was ent.i.tled: _Auf des ehrenwuerdigen Herrn Niclas von Amsdorfs Schrift, so jetzund neulich mense Novembri 1551 wider Dr. Major oeffendtlich im Druck ausgegangen. Antwort Georg Majors._ In it Major disclaimed responsibility for the Interim (although he had been present at Celle, where it had been framed), and declared that he had never doubted the "_sola fide,_ by faith alone." "But," continued Major, "I do confess that I have hitherto taught and still teach, and henceforth will teach all my life: that good works are necessary to salvation. And I declare publicly and with clear and plain words that no one is saved by evil works, and also that no one is saved without good works. Furthermore I say, let him who teaches otherwise, even though an angel from heaven, be accursed (_der sei verflucht_)!" Again: "Therefore it is impossible for a man to be saved without good works." Major explained that good works are necessary to salvation, not because they effect or merit forgiveness of sins, justification, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life (for these gifts are merited alone by the death of our only Mediator and Savior Jesus Christ, and can be received only by faith), "but nevertheless good works _must be present,_ not as a merit, but as due obedience toward G.o.d." (Schlb. 7, 30.)

In his defiant att.i.tude Major was immediately and firmly opposed by Amsdorf, Flacius, Gallus, and others. Amsdorf published his "_Brief Instruction Concerning Dr. Major's Answer, that he is not innocent, as he boasts._ Ein kurzer Unterricht auf Dr. Majoris Antwort, da.s.s er nicht unschuldig sei, wie er sich ruehmet," 1552. Major's declaration and anathema are here met by Amsdorf as follows: "First of all, I would like to know against whom Dr. George Major is writing when he says: n.o.body merits heaven by evil works. Has even the angry and impetuous Amsdorf ever taught and written thus? ...We know well, praise G.o.d, and confess that a Christian should and must do good works. n.o.body disputes and speaks concerning that; nor has anybody doubted this. On the contrary, we speak and dispute concerning this, whether a Christian earns salvation by the good works which he should and must do.... For we all say and confess that after his renewal and new birth a Christian should love and fear G.o.d and do all manner of good works, but not that he may be saved, for he is saved already by faith (_aber nicht darum, da.s.s er selig werde, denn er ist schon durch den Glauben selig_). This is the true prophetic and apostolic doctrine, and whoever teaches otherwise is already accursed and d.a.m.ned. I, therefore, Nicholas von Amsdorf, declare: Whoever teaches and preaches these words as they read (Good works are necessary to salvation), is a Pelagian, a mameluke, and a denier of Christ, and he has the same spirit which prompted Drs. Mensing and Witzel to write against Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, that good works are necessary to salvation." (Schlb. 7, 210.)

Another attack was ent.i.tled: "Against the Evangelist of the Holy Gown, Dr. Miser Major. _Wider den Evangelisten des heiligen Chorrocks, Dr.

Geitz Major,_" 1552. Here Flacius--for he was the author of this publication--maintained that neither justification, nor salvation, nor the preservation of the state of grace is to be based on good works. He objected to Major's propositions because they actually made good works the antecedent and cause of salvation and robbed Christians of their comfort. He declared: "When we say: That is necessary for this work or matter, it means just as much as if we said: It is a cause, or, by this or that work one effects this or that." As to the practical consequences of Major's propositions, Flacius remarks: "If therefore good works are necessary to salvation, and if it is impossible for any one to be saved without them, then tell us, Dr. Major, how can a man be saved who all his life till his last breath has led a sinful life, but now when about to die, desires to apprehend Christ (as is the case with many on their death-bed or on the gallows)? How will Major comfort such a poor sinner?" The poor sinner, Flacius continues, would declare: "Major, the great theologian, writes and teaches as most certain that no one can be saved without good works, and that good works are absolutely necessary (_ganz notwendig_) to salvation; therefore I am d.a.m.ned, for I have heretofore never done any good works." "Furthermore Major will also have to state and determine the least number of ounces or pounds of good works one is required to have to obtain salvation." (Preger 1, 363f.)

In his "Explanation and Answer to the New Subtle Corruption of the Gospel of Christ--_Erklaerung und Antwort auf die neue subtile Verfaelschung des Evangelii Christi,_" 1554 Nicholas Gallus maintained that, if the righteousness presented by Christ alone is the cause of our justification and salvation, then good works can only be the fruits of it. In a similar way Schnepf, Chemnitz, and others declared themselves against Majorism. (Schlb. 7, 55. 162. 205. 534. 572; _C. R._ 9, 475; Seeberg, _Dogg._ 4, 486.)

145. Major's Modifications.

Major answered his opponents in his book of 1553 ent.i.tled, _A Sermon on the Conversion to G.o.d of St. Paul and All G.o.d-fearing Men._ In it he most emphatically denied that he had ever taught that good works are necessary in order to _earn_ salvation, and explained more fully "whether, in what way, which, and why good works are nevertheless necessary to salvation." Here he also admits: "This proposition would be dangerous and dark if I had said without any distinction and explanation: Good works are necessary to salvation. For thus one might easily be led to believe that we are saved by good works without faith, or also by the merit of good works, not by faith alone." "We are not just and saved by renewal, and because the fulfilment of the Law is begun in us, as the Interim teaches, but in this life we always remain just and saved by faith _alone._" (Preger 1, 364ff.)

Major explains: "When I say: The new obedience or good works which follow faith are necessary to salvation, this is not to be understood in the sense that one must earn salvation by good works, or that they const.i.tute, or could effect or impart the righteousness by which a man may stand before the judgment-seat of G.o.d, but that good works are effects and fruits of true faith, which are to follow it [faith] and are wrought by Christ in believers. For whoever believes and is just, he, at the risk of losing his righteousness and salvation, is in duty bound and obliged to begin to obey G.o.d as his Father, to do that which is good, and to avoid evil." (370.)