 |
| George Major taught the necessity of good works, while Amsdorf taught against good works. Both errors were refuted. |
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
constituent 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 constituens, 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; assisted 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 passage 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 shirk 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, _Analecta,_ 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 damnatam, 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 document 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 God 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 godly
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--_dass
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 title
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
entitled: _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 God." (Schlb. 7, 30.)
In his
defiant attitude 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, dass 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: Nobody
merits
heaven by evil works. Has even the angry and impetuous Amsdorf
ever
taught and written thus? ...We know well, praise God, and confess
that a
Christian should and must do good works. Nobody 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 God and do all manner of good works, but not that he may
be saved,
for he is saved already by faith (_aber nicht darum, dass 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 damned. 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 entitled: "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 damned, 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 entitled, _A Sermon on
the
Conversion to God of St. Paul and All God-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
constitute,
or could effect or impart the righteousness by which a man
may stand
before the judgment-seat of God, 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 God as his Father, to do that which is good,
and to
avoid evil." (370.)
Major
furthermore modified his statement by explaining: Good works are
necessary
to salvation, not in order to obtain but to retain, salvation.
"In
order to retain salvation and not to lose it again," he said, "they
are
necessary to such an extent that, if you fail to do them, it is a
sure
indication that your faith is dead and false, a painted faith, an
opinion
existing only in your imagination." The reason, said Major
(Menius,
too, later on expressed his agreement in this point with
Major),
why he had urged his proposition concerning the necessity of
good
works to salvation, was the fact that the greater number also of
those who
claim to be good evangelical Christians "imagine that they
believe,
and imagine and fabricate a faith which may exist without good
works,
though this is just as impossible as that the sun should not emit
brightness
and splendor." (Tschackert 515; Frank 2, 162. 373.)
Reducing
his teaching to a number of syllogisms, Major argued, in
substance,
as follows: Eternal life is given to none but the regenerate;
regeneration,
however, is new obedience and good works in the believers
and the
beginning of eternal life: hence the new life, which consists in
good
works, is necessary to believers for salvation. Again: No one is
saved
unless he confesses with his mouth the faith of his heart in
Christ
and remains steadfast in such faith, Rom. 10, 9. 10; Matt. 22,
13; hence
the works of confessing and persevering faith are necessary to
salvation
as fruits of faith, in order that salvation, obtained by
faith,
may not be lost by denial and apostasy. (Frank 2, 162.) Again:
The thing
without which salvation cannot be preserved is necessary to
salvation;
without obedience toward God salvation, received by grace
through
faith, cannot be preserved; hence obedience toward God is
necessary
in order that by it salvation, received by grace, may be
preserved
and may not be lost by disobedience. At the conclusion of his
"Sermon
on Paul's Conversion," Major also repeated his anathema against
all those
who teach otherwise, and added: "Hiewider moegen nun Amseln
[Amsdorf]
oder Drosseln singen und schreien, Haehne [Gallus] kraehen
oder
gatzen [gakkern], verloffene und unbekannte Wenden und Walen
[Flacius]
laestern, die Schrift verwenden, verkehren, kalumniieren,
schreiben
und malen, wie sie wollen, so bin ich doch gewiss, dass diese
Lehre, so
in diesem Sermon steht die rechte goettliche Wahrheit ist,
wider
welche auch alle hoellischen Pforten nichts Bestaendiges oder
Gruendliches
koennen aufbringen, wie boese sie sich auch machen."
(Preger
1, 371. 380.)
Schluesselburg
charges Major also with confounding justification with
sanctification.
In proof of this he quotes the following from Major's
remarks
on Rom. 8: "Salvation or justification is twofold: one in this
life and
the other in eternal life. The salvification in this life
consists,
first, in the remission of sins and in the imputation of
righteousness;
secondly, in the gift and renewing of the Holy Spirit and
in the
hope of eternal life bestowed freely for the sake of Christ. This
salvification
and justification is only begun [in this life] and
imperfect;
for in those who are saved and justified by faith there still
remains
sin, the depravity of nature, there remain also the terrors of
sin and
of the Law, the bite of the old Serpent, and death, together
with all
miseries that flesh is heir to. Thus by faith and the Holy
Ghost we,
indeed, _begin to be justified,_ sanctified, and saved, but we
are not
yet _perfectly justified,_ sanctified, and saved. It remains,
therefore,
that we become _perfectly just and saved._ Sic per fidem et
Spiritum
Sanctum _coepimus quidem iustificari,_ sanctificari, et
salvari,
nondum tamen perfecte iusti et salvi sumus. Reliquum igitur
est, ut
perfecte iusti et salvi fiamus." (7, 348.)
146.
Menius Sides with Major.
Prominent
among the theologians who were in essential agreement with
Major was
Justus Menius. He was born 1499; became Superintendent in
Gotha
1546; was favorably disposed toward the Leipzig Interim; resigned
his
position in Gotha 1557; removed to Leipzig, where he published his
polemical
writings against Flacius; died August 11, 1558. In 1554 he was
entangled
in the Majoristic controversy. In this year Amsdorf demanded
that Menius,
who, together with himself, Schnepf, and Stolz, had been
appointed
visitors of Thuringia, declare himself against the
Adiaphorists,
and, in particular, reject the books of Major, and his
doctrine
that good works are necessary to salvation. Menius declined,
because,
he said, he had not read these books. As a result Menius was
charged
with being a secret adherent of Majorism.
In 1556,
however, Menius himself proved by his publications that this
suspicion
was not altogether unwarranted. For in his _Preparation for a
Blessed
Death_ and in a _Sermon on Salvation,_ published in that year,
Menius
taught that the beginning of the new life in believers is
"necessary
to salvation" (Tschackert, 517; _Herzog, R._ 12, 89.) This
caused
Flacius to remark in his book, _Concerning the Unity of Those who
in the
Past Years have Fought for and against the Adiaphora,_ 1556:
"Major
and Menius, in their printed books, are again reviving the error
that good
works are necessary to salvation, wherefore it is to be feared
that the
latter misfortune will be worse than the former." (Preger 1,
382.)
Soon after, Menius was suspended from office and required to clear
himself
before the Synod in Eisenach, 1556. Here he subscribed seven
propositions
in which the doctrine that good works are necessary to
salvation,
or to retain salvation, was rejected.
The seven
Eisenach propositions, signed by Menius, read as follows: "1.
Although
this proposition, Good works are necessary to salvation, may be
tolerated
in the doctrine of the Law abstractly and ideally (_in
doctrina
legis abstractive et de idea tolerari potest_), nevertheless
there are
many weighty reasons why it should be avoided and shunned no
less than
the other: Christ is a creature. 2. In the forum of
justification
and salvation this proposition, Good works are necessary
to
salvation, is not at all to be tolerated. 3. In the forum of new
obedience,
after reconciliation, good works are not at all necessary to
salvation
but for other causes. 4. Faith alone justifies and saves in
the beginning,
middle, and end. 5. Good works are not necessary to
retain
salvation (_ad retinendam salutem_). 6. Justification and
salvation
are synonyms and equipollent or convertible terms, and neither
can nor
must be separated in any way (_nec ulla ratione distrahi aut
possunt
aut debent_). 7. May therefore the papistical buskin be banished
from our
church on account of its manifold offenses and innumerable
dissensions
and other causes of which the apostles speak Acts 15."
(Preger
1, 383.)
In his
subscription to these theses Menius declared: "I, Justus Menius,
testify
by my present signature that this confession is true and
orthodox,
and that, according to the gift given me by God, I have
heretofore
by word and writing publicly defended it, and shall continue
to defend
it." In this subscription Menius also promised to correct the
offensive
expressions in his _Sermon on Salvation._ However,
dissatisfied
with the intolerable situation thus created, he resigned,
and soon
after became Superintendent in Leipzig. In three violently
polemical
books, published there in 1557 and 1558, he freely vented his
long
pent-up feelings of anger and animosity, especially against
Flacius.
(384f.)
In these
publications, Menius denied that he had ever used the
proposition
of Major. However, he not only refused to reject it, but
defended
the same error, though in somewhat different terms. He merely
replaced
the phrase "good works" by "new life," "new
righteousness,"
"new
obedience," and affirmed "that it is necessary to our salvation
that such
be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost." He wrote: The Holy Spirit
renews
those who have become children of God by faith in Christ, and
that this
is performed in them "this, I say, they need for their
salvation--_sei
ihnen zur Seligkeit vonnoeten._" (Frank 2, 223.) Again:
"He
[the Holy Spirit] begins righteousness and life in the believers,
which
beginning is in this life (as long as we dwell on earth in this
sinful
flesh) very weak and imperfect, _but nevertheless necessary to
salvation,_
and will be perfect after the resurrection, that we may walk
in it
before God eternally and be saved." (222.) Works, said Menius,
must not
be introduced into the article of justification,
reconciliation,
and redemption; but when dealing with the article of
sanctification,
"then it is correct to say: Sanctification, or renewal
of the
Holy Spirit, is necessary to salvation." (Preger 1, 388.)
With
respect to the proposition, Good works are necessary to salvation,
Menius
stated that he could not simply condemn it as altogether false
and
heretical. Moreover, he argued: "If it is correct to say:
Sanctification,
or renewal by the Holy Spirit, is necessary to
salvation,
then it cannot be false to say: Good works are necessary to
salvation,
since it is certain and cannot be gainsaid that
sanctification
and renewal do not and cannot exist without good works."
(386.)
Indeed, he himself maintained that "good works are necessary to
salvation
in order that we may not lose it again." (387. 391.) At the
same time
Menius, as stated above, claimed that he had never employed
Major's
proposition, and counseled others to abstain from its use in
order to
avoid misinterpretation. The same advice he gave with respect
to his
own formula that new obedience is necessary to salvation. (Frank
2, 165.
223.)
Menius
also confounded justification and sanctification. He wrote: "By
faith in
Christ alone we become just before God and are saved. Why?
Because
by faith one receives first, forgiveness of sins and the
righteousness
or obedience of Christ, with which He fulfilled the Law
for us;
thereupon, one also receives the Holy Spirit, who effects and
fulfils
in us the righteousness required by the Law, here in this life
imperfectly
and perfectly in the life to come." (Preger 1, 387.) At the
synod of
Eisenach, 1556, the theologians accordingly declared: "Although
it is
true that grace and the gift through grace cannot be separated,
but are
always together, nevertheless the gift of the Holy Spirit is not
a piece
or part, much less a co-cause of justification and salvation,
but an
appendix, a consequence, and an additional gift of grace.--
_Wiewohl
es wahr ist, dass gratia und donum per gratiam nicht koennen
getrennt
werden, sondern allezeit beieinander sind, so ist doch die Gabe
des
Heiligen Geistes nicht ein Stueck oder Teil, viel weniger eine
Mitursache
der Justifikation und Salvation, sondern ist ein Anhang,
Folge und
Zugab be der Gnade._" (Seeberg 4, 487.)
147.
Attitude of Anti-Majorists.
With the
exception of Menius and other adherents in Electoral Saxony,
Major was
firmly opposed by Lutheran ministers and theologians
everywhere.
Even when he was still their superintendent, the ministers
of
Mansfeld took issue with him; and after he was dismissed by Count
Albrecht,
they drafted an _Opinion,_ in which they declared that Major's
proposition
obscures the doctrine of God's grace and Christ's merit.
Also the
clergy of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg united in
an
_Opinion,_ in which they rejected Major's proposition. Chief among
the
theologians who opposed him were, as stated, Amsdorf, Flacius,
Wigand,
Gallus, Moerlin and Chemnitz. In their publications they
unanimously
denounced the proposition that good works are necessary to
salvation,
and its equivalents, as dangerous, godless, blasphemous, and
popish.
Yet before the controversy they themselves had not all nor
always
been consistent and correct in their terminology.
The
_Formula of Concord_ says: "Before this controversy quite a few pure
teachers
employed such and similar expressions [that faith is preserved
by good
works, etc.] in the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, in no
way,
however, intending thereby to confirm the above-mentioned errors of
the
Papists." (949, 36.) Concerning the word "faith," 1549, Flacius,
for
example
had said that our effort to obey God might be called a "_causa
sine qua
non,_ or something which serves salvation." His words are:
"Atque
hinc apparet, quatenus nostrum studium obediendi Deo dici possit
causa
sine qua non, seu huperetikon ti, id est, quiddam subserviens ad
salutem."
But when his attention was called to this passage, he first
eliminated
the _causa sine qua non_ and substituted _ad vitam aeternam_
for _ad
salutem,_ and afterwards changed this phrase into _ad veram
pietatem._
(Frank 2, 218. 169.) However, as soon as the controversy
began,
the Lutherans, notably Flacius, clearly saw the utter falsity of
Major's
statements.
Flacius
wrote: "Salvation is forgiveness of sins, as Paul testifies,
Rom. 4,
and David, Ps. 32: 'Blessed are they whose sins are forgiven.'
'Thy
faith hath made thee whole.' Matt. 9; Mark 5. 10, Luke 7. 8. 18.
Jesus
saves sinners and the lost. Matt. 1, 18; 1 Tim. 1. Since, now,
salvation
and forgiveness of sins are one and the same thing, consider,
dear
Christian, what kind of doctrine this is: No one has received
forgiveness
of sins without good works; it is impossible for any one to
receive
forgiveness of sins or to be saved without good works; good
works are
necessary to forgiveness of sins." (Preger 1, 375.) Again:
"Young
children and those who are converted in their last hour (who
certainly
constitute the greater part), must confess that they neither
possess,
nor will possess, any good works, for they die forthwith.
Indeed,
St. Bernard also wrote when on his deathbed: _Perdite vixi_--I
have led
a wicked life! And what is still more, all Christians, when in
their
dying moments, they are striving with sins, must say: 'All our
good
works are like filthy rags; in my life there is nothing good;' and,
as David
says, Ps.51: 'Before Thee I am nothing but sin,' as Dr. Luther
explains
it." (376.) Again: "We are concerned about this, that poor and
afflicted
consciences may have a firm and certain consolation against
sin,
death, devil, and hell, and thus be saved. For if a condition or
appendix
concerning our good works and worthiness is required as
necessary
to salvation, then, as Dr. Major frequently discusses this
matter
very excellently, it is impossible to have a firm and solid
consolation."
(376.)
Flacius
showed that Major's proposition taken as it reads, can be
interpreted
only in a papistical sense, and that no amount of
explanations
is able to cure it of its ingrained falsity. Major, said
he, must
choose between his proposition or the interpretations which he
places
upon it; for the former does not admit of the latter. He added
that a
proposition which is in constant need of explanations in order
not to be
misunderstood is not adapted for religious instruction. From
the fact,
says Flacius, that the justified are obliged to obey the Law,
it
follows indeed that good works are necessary, but not that they are
necessary
to salvation (as Major and Menius inferred). "From the
premises
[that Christians are in duty bound to obey the Law and to
render
the new obedience] it merely follows that this obedience is
necessary;
but nothing is here said of salvation." (392.) Flacius showed
that
Major's proposition, even with the proviso that each and every
merit of
works was to be excluded, remained objectionable. The words
"necessary
to, _necessaria ad,_" always, he insisted, designate
something
that precedes, moves, works, effects. The proposition:
Justification,
salvation, and faith are necessary to good works, cannot
be
reversed, because good works are not antecedents, but consequents of
justification,
salvation, and faith.
For the
same reason Flacius objected to the phrase that good works are
necessary
as _causa sine qua non._ "Dear Dr. G." (Major), says he, "ask
the
highly learned Greek philosophers for a little information as to
what they
say _de causa sine qua non, hon ouk aneu._ Ask I say, the
learned
and the unlearned, ask philosophy, reason, and common languages,
whether
it is not true that it [_causa sine qua non_] must precede."
(377.) No
one, said he would understand the propositions of Major and
Menius
correctly. Illustrating this point Flacius wrote: "Can one become
a
carpenter without the house which he builds afterwards? Can one make a
wagon or
ship without driving or sailing? I say, yes! Or, dear Doctor,
are we
accustomed to say: Driving and sailing is necessary to the wagon
and ship
respectively, and it is impossible for a wagon or ship to be
made
without driving or sailing? I hear: No!" (375.) "Nobody says:
Fruits
and leaves are necessary to the tree; wine and grapes are
necessary
to the vineyard; or dwelling is necessary to a house; driving
and
sailing, to a wagon and ship; riding is necessary to a horse; but
thus they
speak: Wagons and horses are necessary to riding, a ship is
necessary
to sailing." (391.)
The
charge that Major's proposition robbed Christians of their assurance
of
salvation was urged also by Nicholas Gallus. He says: It is giving
with one
hand and taking again with the other when Major adds [to his
proposition
concerning the necessity of good works to salvation] that
our
conscience is not to look upon our works, but on Christ alone.
(Frank 2,
224.) The same point was stressed in the _Opinion_ of the
ministers
of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg, published by
Flacius
and Gallus in 1553. (220.) The Hamburg theologians declared:
"This
appendix [necessary to salvation, _ad salutem_] indicates a cause
and a
merit." They added that in this sense also the phrase was
generally
understood by the Papists. (Planck, _Geschichte des prot.
Lehrbegriffes_
5, 505. 497.) Gallus also explained that it was
papistical
to infer: By sins we lose salvation, hence it is retained by
good
works; or, Sins condemn, hence good works save. (Frank 2, 171.)
Hesshusius
wrote to Wigand: "I regard Eber's assertion that good works
are
necessary to justification _because they must be present,_ as false
and
detrimental. For Paul expressly excludes good works from the
justification
of a sinner before God, not only when considered a merit
cause,
glory, dignity, price, object or trust, and medium of
application,
etc., but also as to the necessity of their presence
(_verum
etiam quoad necessitatem praesentiae_). If it is necessary that
good
works be present with him who is to be justified, then Paul errs
when he
declares that a man is justified without the works of the Law."
(172.)
Regarding
this point, that good works are necessary to justification in
so far as
they must be present, the Majorists appealed to Luther, who,
however,
had merely stated that faith is never alone, though it alone
justifies.
His axiom was: "Faith alone justifies, but it is not alone--
_Fides
sola iustificat, sed non est sola._" According to Luther good
works,
wherever they are found, are present in virtue of faith; where
they are
not present, they are absent because faith is lacking; nor can
they
preserve the faith by which alone they are produced. At the
Altenburg
Colloquy (1568 to 1569) the theologians of Electoral Saxony
insisted
that, since true faith does not and cannot exist in those who
persevere
in sins against their conscience, good works must not be
altogether
and absolutely excluded from justification, at least their
necessity
and presence must not be regarded as unnecessary. (189.) The
theologians
of Ducal Saxony, however, denied "that in the article and
act of
justification our good works are necessary by necessity of
presence.
_Sed impugnamus istam propositionem, in articulo et actu
iustificationis
bona nostra opera necessaria esse necessitate
praesentiae._"
"On the other hand, however, they, too, were solicitous
to affirm
the impossibility of faith's coexisting with an evil purpose
to sin
against God in one and the same mind at the same time." (237;
Gieseler
3, 2, 251.) In the _Apology of the Book of Concord_ the
Lutheran
theologians declared: "The proposition (Justification of faith
requires
the presence of good works) was rejected [in the _Formula of
Concord_]
because it cannot be understood otherwise than of the cause of
justification.
For whatever is present in justification as necessary in
such a
manner that without its presence justification can neither be nor
occur,
that must indeed be understood as being a cause of justification
itself."
(238)
148.
Major's Concessions Not Satisfactory.
In order
to put an end to the controversy, Major offered a concession in
his
"_Confession concerning the Article of Justification,_ that is,
concerning
the doctrine that by faith alone, without any merit, for the
sake of
Christ, a man has forgiveness of sins, and is just before God
and an
heir of eternal salvation," 1558. Here he states that he had not
used the
controverted formula for several years and, in order not to
give
further cause for public contention, he promised "not to employ the
words,
'Good works are necessary to salvation,' any more, on account of
the false
interpretations placed upon it." (Preger 1, 396.) In making
this
concession, however, Major did not at all intend to retract his
teaching
or to condemn his proposition as false. He promised to abstain
from its
use, not because he was now convinced of his error and viewed
his
propositions as false and incorrect as such, but merely because it
was
ambiguous and liable to abuse, and because he wished to end the
conflict.
(Frank 2, 166f. 223.)
Nor did
Major later on ever admit that he had erred in the matter. In an
oration
delivered 1567 he boasted of his intimate relation and doctrinal
agreement
with Luther and Melanchthon, adding: "Neither did I ever
deviate,
nor, God assisting me, shall I ever deviate, from the truth
once
acknowledged. _Nec discessi umquam nec Deo iuvante discedam ab
agnita
semel veritate._" He had never thought or taught, said he, that
good
works are a cause of justification. And concerning the proposition,
"Good
works are necessary to salvation," he had expressly declared that
he
intended to abstain from its use "because it had offended some on
account
of its ambiguity, _cum propter ambiguitatem offenderit
aliquos._"
He continued: "The facts show that we [the professors of
Wittenberg
University] are and have remained guardians of that doctrine
which
Luther and Melanchthon ... delivered to us, in whose writings from
the time
of the [Augsburg] Confession there is neither a dissonance nor
a
discrepancy, either among themselves or from the foundation, nor
anything
obscure or perplexing." (Frank 2, 224. 167.)
Also in
his Testament (_Testamentum Doctoris Georgii Majoris_),
published
1570, Major emphatically denied that he had ever harbored or
taught
any false views concerning justification, salvation, and good
works. Of
his own accord he had also abandoned the phrases: "Good works
are
necessary to salvation; it is impossible to be saved without good
works; no
one has ever been saved without good works--_Bona opera sunt
necessaria
ad salutem; impossibile est, sine bonis operibus salvum
fieri;
nemo umquam sine bonis operibus salvatus est._" He had done this
in order
to obviate the misapprehension as though he taught that good
works are
a cause of salvation which contribute to merit and effect
salvation.
According to this _Testament,_ he desired his doctrines and
writings
to be judged. In future he would not dispute with anybody about
these
phrases. (168.) Thus in his _Testament,_ too, Major withdrew his
statements
not because they were simply false, but only because they
had been
interpreted to mean that good works are the efficient cause of
justification
and salvation. And while Major in later writings did
eliminate
the appendix "_ad salutem,_ to salvation," or "_ad vitam
aeternam,_
to eternal life," he retained, and continued to teach,
essentially
the same error in another garb, namely, that good works are
necessary
in order to retain faith. Enumerating, in his _Explanation of
the
Letter to the Galatians,_ of 1560, the purposes on account of which
good
works ought to be rendered, he mentions as the "first, in order to
retain
faith, the Holy Spirit, the grace bestowed, and a good
conscience."
(218.)
Thus
Major was willing to abandon as dangerous and ambiguous, and to
abstain
from the use of the formula, "Good works are necessary to
salvation,"
but refused to reject it as false and to make a public
admission
and confession of his error. This, however, was precisely what
his
opponents demanded; for they were convinced that they could be
satisfied
with nothing less. As a result the controversy continued till
Major's
death, in 1574. The Jena professors, notably Flacius, have been
charged
with prolonging the controversy from motives of personal
revenge.
(Schaff, 276.) No doubt, the Wittenbergers had gone to the very
limit of
rousing the animosity and resentment of Flacius (who himself,
indeed,
was not blameless in the language used against his opponents).
Major had
depicted Flacius as a most base and wicked man, as a cunning
and sly
adventurer; as a tyrant, who, after having suppressed the
Wittenbergers,
would, as a pope, lord it over all Germany; as an
Antinomian
and a despiser of all good works, etc. (Preger 1, 397.) In
the
address of October 18, 1567 already referred to, Major said: "There
was in
this school [Wittenberg] a vagabond of uncertain origin,
fatherland,
religion, and faith who called himself Flacius Illyricus....
He was
the first one to spew out against this school, against its
principal
Doctors, against the churches of these regions, against the
princes
themselves, the poison which he had brewed and imbibed some time
ago, and,
having gnawed and consumed with the bite of a serpent the womb
of his
mother, to destroy the harmony of these churches, at first by
spreading
his dreams, fables, and gossip but now also by calumnies and
manifest
lies." (Frank 2, 217.) Melanchthon, too, had repeatedly written
in a
similar vein. In an _Opinion_ of his, dated March 4, 1558, we read:
"Even
if they [Flacius and his adherents] condemn and banish me, I am
well
satisfied; for I do not desire to associate with them, because I
well know
that the said Illyricus with his adherents does not seek the
honor of
God, but publicly opposes the truth, and as yet has never
declared
himself concerning the entire sum of Christian doctrine." (_C.
R._ 9,
463. 476. 311.) In an _Opinion_ of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon
even
insinuated that Flacius denied the Trinity. (763.) Before this,
August,
1549, he had written to Fabricius: "The Slavic runagate (Slavus
drapetes)
received many benefits from our Academy and from me. But we
have
nursed a serpent in our bosom. He deserves to be branded on his
forehead
as the Macedonian king did with a soldier: 'Ungrateful
stranger,
xevnos acharistos.' Nor do I believe that the source of his
hatred is
any other than that the place of Cruciger was not given to
him. But
I omit these disagreeable narrations." (7, 449. 478 ff.) This
personal
abuse, however, was not the reason why Flacius persisted in his
opposition
despite the concessions made by Major and Menius,--
concessions
with which even such moderate men as Martin Chemnitz were
not satisfied.
Flacius
continued his opposition because he could not do otherwise
without
sacrificing his own principles, compromising the truth, and
jeopardizing
the doctrine of justification. He did not yield because he
was
satisfied with nothing less than a complete victory of the divine
truth and
an unqualified retraction of error. The truly objective manner
in which
he dealt with this matter appears from his _Strictures on the
Testament
of Dr. Major (Censura de Testamento D. Majoris)_. Here we
read, in
substance: In his _Testament_ Major covers his error with the
same
sophism which he employed in his former writings. For he says that
he
ascribes the entire efficient cause, merit, and price of our
justification
and salvation to Christ alone, and therefore excludes and
removes
all our works and virtues. This he has set forth more fully and
more
clearly in his previous writings, saying that the proposition,
"Good
works are necessary to salvation," can be understood in a double
sense;
_viz._, that they are necessary to salvation as a certain merit,
price, or
efficient cause of justification or salvation (as the Papists
understand
and teach it), or that they are necessary to salvation as a
certain
debt or an indispensable cause (_causa sine qua non_), or a
cause without
which it is impossible for the effect of salvation to
follow or
for any one to obtain it. He now confesses this same opinion.
He does
not expressly eliminate "the indispensable cause, or the
obligation
without the fulfilment of which it is impossible for any one
to be
preserved, as he asserted repeatedly before this, from which it
appears
that he adheres to his old error. _Et non diserte tollit causam
sine qua
non seu debitum, sine cuius persolutione sit impossibile
quemquam
servari, quod toties antea asseruit; facile patet, eum
pristinum
illum suum errorem retinere._" (Schlb. 7, 266; Preger 1, 398.)
Flacius
demanded an unqualified rejection of the statement, "Good works
are
necessary to salvation"--a demand with which Major as well as
Melanchthon
refused to comply. (_C. R._ 9, 474 f.)
The
_Formula of Concord_, however, sanctioned the attitude of Flacius.
It flatly
rejected the false and dubious formulas of Melanchthon, Major,
and
Menius concerning the necessity of good works to salvation, and
fully restored
Luther's doctrine. Luther's words concerning "good works"
are
quoted as follows: "We concede indeed that instruction should be
given
also concerning love and good works, yet in such a way that this
be done
when and where it is necessary, namely, when otherwise and
outside
of this matter of justification we have to do with works. But
here the
chief matter dealt with is the question not whether we should
also do
good works and exercise love, but by what means we can be
justified
before God and saved. And here we answer with St. Paul: that
we are
justified by faith in Christ alone, and not by the deeds of the
Law or by
love. Not that we hereby entirely reject works and love, as
the
adversaries falsely slander and accuse us, but that we do not allow
ourselves
to be led away, as Satan desires, from the chief matter, with
which we
have to do here, to another and foreign affair, which does not
at all
belong to this matter. Therefore, whereas and as long as we are
occupied
with this article of justification, we reject and condemn
works,
since this article is so constituted that it can admit of no
disputation
or treatment whatever regard ing works. Therefore in this
matter we
cut short all Law and works of the Law." (925, 29.)
The
_Formula of Concord_ rejects the Majoristic formula, not because it
is
ambiguous, but because it is false. Concerning ambiguous phrases it
declares:
"To avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum,
i.e._,
words and expressions which are applied and used in various
meanings,
should be carefully and distinctly explained." (874, 51.) An
ambiguous
phrase or statement need not be condemned, because it may be
made
immune from error and misapprehension by a careful explanation. The
statement,
"Good works are necessary to salvation," however, does not
admit of
such treatment. It is inherently false and cannot be cured by
any
amount of explanation or interpretation. Because of this inherent
falsity
it must be rejected as such. Logically and grammatically the
phrase,
"Good works are necessary to salvation," reverses the correct
theological
order, by placing works before faith and sanctification
before
justification. It turns things topsy-turvy. It makes the effect
the
cause; the consequent, the antecedent, and vice versa.
Not
personal animosity, but this fundamental falsity of the Majoristic
formula
was, in the last analysis, the reason why the explanations and
concessions
made by Major and Menius did not and could not satisfy their
opponents.
They maintained, as explained above, that the words
"necessary
to" always imply "something that precedes, moves, effects,
works,"
and that, accordingly, the obnoxious propositions of Major
"place
good works before the remission of sins and before salvation."
(Preger
1, 377.) Even Planck admits that only force could make the
proposition,
"Good works are necessary to salvation," say, "Good works
must
follow faith and justification." "According to the usage of every
language,"
says he, "a phrase saying that one thing is necessary to
another
designates a causal connection. Whoever dreamt of asserting that
heat is
necessary to make it day, because it is a necessary effect of
the rays
of the sun, by the spreading of which it becomes day." (4, 542.
485.)
Without compromising the truth and jeopardizing the doctrine of
justification,
therefore, the Lutherans were able to regard as
satisfactory
only a clear and unequivocal rejection of Majorism as it is
found in
the _Formula of Concord._
149.
Absurd Proposition of Amsdorf.
Nicholas
Amsdorf, the intimate and trusted friend of Luther, was among
the most
zealous of the opponents of Majorism. He was born December 3,
1483;
professor in Wittenberg; 1521 in Worms with Luther; superintendent
in
Magdeburg; 1542 bishop at Naumburg; banished by Maurice in 1547, he
removed
to Magdeburg; soon after professor and superintendent in Jena;
opposed
the Interimists, Adiaphorists, Osiandrists, Majorists,
Synergists,
Sacramentarians, Anabaptists, and Schwenckfeldians; died at
Eisenach
May 14, 1565. Regarding the bold statements of Major as a blow
at the
very heart of true Lutheranism, Amsdorf antagonized his teaching
as a
"most pernicious error," and denounced Major as a Pelagian and a
double
Papist. But, alas, the momentum of his uncontrolled zeal carried
him a
step too far--over the precipice. He declared that good works are
detrimental
and injurious to salvation, _bona opera perniciosa_ (noxia)
_esse ad
salutem._ He defended his paradoxical statement in a
publication
of 1559 against Menius, with whose subscription to the
Eisenach
propositions, referred to above, he was not satisfied; chiefly
because
Menius said there that he had taught and defended them also in
the past.
The flagrant blunder of Amsdorf was all the more offensive
because
it appeared on the title of his tract, reading as follows:
"_Dass
diese Propositio: 'Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schaedlich,'
eine
rechte, wahre christliche Propositio sei,_ durch die heiligen
Paulum
und Lutherum gelehrt und gepredigt. Niclas von Amsdorf, 1559.
That this
proposition, 'Good works are injurious to salvation,' is a
correct,
true, Christian proposition taught and preached by Sts. Paul
and
Luther." (Frank 2, 228.)
Luther,
to whose writings Amsdorf appealed, had spoken very guardedly
and
correctly in this matter. He had declared: Good works are
detrimental
to the righteousness of faith, "if one presumes to be
justified
by them, _si quis per ea praesumat iustificari._" Wherever
Luther
speaks of the injuriousness of good works, it is always _sub
specie
iustificationis,_ that is to say, viewing good works as entering
the
article of justification, or the forgiveness of sins. (Weimar 7, 59;
10, 3,
373. 374. 387; E. 16, 465. 484; Tschackert, 516.) What vitiated
the
proposition as found in Amsdorf's tract was the fact that he had
omitted
the modification added by Luther. Amsdorf made a flat statement
of what
Luther had asserted, not flatly, _nude et simpliciter,_ but with
a
limitation, _secundum quid._
Self-evidently
the venerable Amsdorf, too, who from the very beginning
of the
Reformation had set an example in preaching as well as in living
a truly
Christian life, did not in the least intend to minimize, or
discourage
the doing of, good works by his offensive phrase, but merely
to
eliminate good works from the article of justification. As a matter
of fact,
his extravagant statement, when taken as it reads, flatly
contradicted
his own clear teaching. In 1552 he had declared against
Major, as
recorded above: "Who has ever taught or said that one should
or need
not do good works?" "For we all say and confess that after his
renewal
and new birth a Christian should love and fear God and do all
manner of
good works," etc. What Amsdorf wished to emphasize was not
that good
works are dangerous in themselves and as such, but in the
article
of salvation. For this reason he added: "_ad salutem,_ to
salvation."
By this appendix he meant to emphasize that good works are
dangerous
when introduced as a factor in justification and trusted in
for one's
salvation.
Melanchthon
refers to the proposition of Amsdorf as "filthy speech,
_unflaetige
Rede._" In 1557, at Worms, he wrote: "Now Amsdorf writes:
Good
works are detrimental to salvation.... The Antinomians and their
like must
avoid the filthy speech, 'Good works are detrimental to
salvation.'"
(_C. R._ 9, 405 ff.) Though unanimously rejecting his
blundering
proposition, Amsdorf's colleagues treated the venerable
veteran
of Lutheranism with consideration and moderation. No one, says
Frank,
disputed the statement in the sense in which Amsdorf took it, and
its form
was so apparently false that it could but be generally
disapproved.
(2, 176.) The result was that the paradox assertion
remained
without any special historical consequences.
True,
Major endeavored to foist Amsdorf's teaching also on Flacius. He
wrote:
Flacius "endeavors with all his powers to subvert this
proposition,
that good works are necessary to those who are to be saved;
and tries
to establish the opposite blasphemy, that good works are
dangerous
to those who are to be saved, and that they area hindrance to
eternal
salvation--_evertere summis viribus hanc propositionem conatur:
bona
opera salvandis esse necessaria. Ac contra stabilire oppositam
blasphemiam
studet: Bona opera salvandis periculosa sunt et aeternae
saluti
officiunt._" Major continues: "Let pious minds permit Flacius and
his
compeers, at their own risk, to prostitute their eternal salvation
to the
devils, and by their execrations and anathemas to sacrifice
themselves
to the devil and his angels." (Frank 2, 221.) This, however,
was
slander pure and simple, for Flacius was among the first publicly to
disown
Amsdorf when he made his extravagant statement against Menius.
(Preger
1, 392. 384.)
The
_Formula of Concord_ most emphatically rejects the error of Amsdorf
(the bare
statement that good works are injurious to salvation) "as
offensive
and detrimental to Christian discipline." And justly so; for
the
question was not what Amsdorf meant to say: but what he really did
say. The
_Formula_ adds: "For especially in these last times it is no
less, needful
to admonish men to Christian discipline and good works,
and
remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in
good
works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than
that
works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men
may be
damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by
papistic
and Pharisaical confidence in their own works and merits."
(801,
18.)
150.
Other Points of Dispute.
Is it
correct to say: God requires good works, or, Good works are
necessary,
and, Christians are obliged or in duty bound to do good works
(_bona
opera sunt necessaria et debita_)? This question, too, was a
point of
dispute in the Majoristic controversy. Originally the
controversy
concerning these terms and phrases was a mere logomachy,
which,
however, later on (when, after the error lurking in the absolute
rejection
of them had been pointed out, the phrases were still flatly
condemned),
developed into a violent controversy. The _Formula of
Concord_
explains: "It has also been argued by some that good works are
not
_necessary (noetig)_, but are _voluntary (freiwillig)_, because they
are not
extorted by fear and the penalty of the Law, but are to be done
from a
voluntary spirit and a joyful heart. Over against this the other
side
contended that good works are _necessary_. This controversy was
originally
occasioned by the words _necessitas_ and _libertas_
["_notwendig_"
und "_frei_"], that is, necessary and free, because
especially
the word _necessitas,_ necessary, signifies not only the
eternal,
immutable order according to which all men are obliged and in
duty
bound to obey God, but sometimes also a coercion, by which the Law
forces
men to good works. But afterwards there was a disputation not
only
concerning the words, but the doctrine itself was attacked in the
most
violent manner, and it was contended that the new obedience in the
regenerate
is not necessary because of the above-mentioned divine
order."
(939, 4f.)
From the
very beginning of the Reformation the Romanists had slandered
Luther
also by maintaining that he condemned good works and simply
denied
their necessity. A similar charge was made by the Majorists
against
their opponents generally. And Melanchthon's writings, too,
frequently
create the same impression. But it was an inference of their
own. They
argued: If good works are not necessary to salvation, they
cannot be
necessary at all. Wigand wrote: "It is a most malicious and
insidious
trait in the new teachers [the Majorists] that they, in order
to gloss
over their case, cry out with the Papists that the controversy
is
whether good works are necessary. But this is not in dispute, for no
Christian
ever denied it. Good works are necessary; that is certainly
true. But
the conflict arises from the appendix attached to it, and the
patch
pasted to it, _viz._, 'to salvation.' And here all God-fearing
men say
that it is a detrimental, offensive, damnable, papistic
appendix."
(Planck 4, 498. 544.)
It is
true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more
extensively
in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents
of the
Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement, "Good works are
necessary."
Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily
implying,
not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion,
they
rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word "must" is
here not
in place, they protested. Agricola, as well as the later
Antinomians
(Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions "_necessarium,_
necessary"
and "duty, _debitum,_" when employed in connection with good
works.
January 13, 1555, Melanchthon wrote: "Some object to the words,
'Good
works are _necessary,_' or, 'One _must_ do good works.' They
object to
the two words _necessitas_ and _debitum._ And the
Court-preacher
[Agricola] at that time juggled with the word _must: 'das
Muss ist
versalzen._' He understood _necessarium_ and _debitum_ as
meaning,
coerced by fear of punishment, _extortum coactione_ (extorted
by
coercion), and spoke high-sounding words, such as, how good works
came
without the Law. Yet the first meaning of _necessarium_ and
_debitum_
is not _extortum coactione,_ but the eternal and immutable
order of
divine wisdom; and the Lord Christ and Paul themselves employ
these
words _necessarium_ and _debitum._" In December, 1557, he wrote:
"They
[the Antinomians] object to the proposition: 'New obedience is
necessary;'
again: 'New obedience is a debt (_debitum_).' And now
Amsdorf
writes: 'Good works are detrimental to salvation,'and it was
Eisleben's
[Agricola's] slogan: 'Das Muss ist versalzen.' In Nordhausen
some one
has publicly announced a disputation which contains the
proposition:
'_Summa ars Chriatianorum est nescire legem._--The highest
art of a
Christian is not to know the Law.'" March 4, 1558: "Some, for
instance,
Amsdorf and Gallus, object to the word _debitum._" (_C. R._ 8,
411. 194.
842; 9, 405. 474.)
Andrew
Musculus, professor in Frankfurt on the Oder, is reported to have
said in a
sermon, 1558: "They are all the devil's own who teach: 'New
obedience
is necessary (_nova obedientia est necessaria_)'; the word
'must
(necessary)' does not belong here. 'Good works are necessary to
salvation,'
and, 'Good works are necessary, but not to salvation'--these
are both
of a cloth--_das sind zwei Hosen aus EINEM Tuch._" (Meusel,
_Handlexikon_
4, 710; Gieseler 3, 2, 216.)
Over
against this extreme position, Melanchthon, Flacius, Wigand,
Moerlin,
and others held that it was entirely correct to say that good
works are
necessary. In the _Opinion_ of November 13, 1559, referred to
above,
Melanchthon, after stating that he does not employ the phrase,
"Good
works are necessary to salvation," continues as follows: "But I do
affirm
that these propositions are true, and that one may properly and
without
sophistry say, 'The new obedience or good works are necessary,'
because
obedience is due to God and because it is necessary that, after
the Holy
Spirit has been received, regeneration or conversion be
followed
by motions corresponding to the Holy Spirit.... And the words
'duty'
and 'necessity' signify the order of God's wisdom and justice;
they do
not signify an obedience which is compelled or extorted by
fear."
(_C. R._ 9, 969.) The Frankfurt _Rezess_ of 1558 [Rezess,
Rueckzug,
Vergleich = Agreement], written by Melanchthon and signed by
the
Lutheran princes, declared: "These propositions, '_Nova obedientia
est
necessaria, nova obedientia est debitum,_ New obedience is
necessary,
is a debt,' shall not be rejected." The _Rezess_ explained:
"It
is certainly a divine, immovable truth that new obedience is
necessary
in those who are justified; and these words are to be retained
in their
true meaning. 'Necessary' signifies divine order. New obedience
is
necessary and is a debt for the very reason that it is an immutable
divine
order that the rational creature obeys God." (_C. R._ 9, 496.
498.)
In a
similar way this matter was explained by Flacius and other
theologians.
They all maintained that it is correct to say, Good works
are
necessary. Even Amsdorf wrote 1552 in his _Brief Instruction_
against
Major: "For we all say and confess that a Christian after his
renewal
and new birth _should_ and _must_ (_soll und muss_) love and
fear God
and do all manner of good works, but not in order to be saved
thereby,
for he is saved already by faith." (Schlb. 7, 210.) This view,
which was
also plainly taught in the _Augsburg Confession,_ prevailed
and
received the sanction of our Church in Article IV of the _Formula of
Concord._
When a Christian spontaneously and by the free impulse of his
own faith
does (and would do, even if there were no law at all) what,
according
to the holy will of God, revealed in the Ten Commandments, he
is
obliged and in duty bound to do--such works, and such only, are,
according
to the _Formula of Concord,_ truly good works, works pleasing
to God.
It was the doctrine of Luther, who had written, _e.g._, in his
_Church
Postil_ of 1521: "No, dear man, you [cannot earn heaven by your
good
works, but you] must have heaven and already be saved before you do
good
works. Works do not merit heaven, but, on the contrary, heaven,
imparted
by pure grace, does good works spontaneouslv, seeking no merit,
but only
the welfare of the neighbor and the glory of God. _Nein, lieber
Mensch,
du musst den Himmel haben und schon selig sein, ehe du gute
Werke
tust. Die Werke verdienen nicht den Himmel, sondern wiederum
[umgekehrt],
der Himmel, aus lauter Gnaden gegeben, tut die guten Werke
dahin,
ohne Gesuch des Verdienstes, nur dem Naechsten zu Nutz und Gott
zu
Ehren._" (E. 7, 174.) Again, in _De Servio Arbitrio_ of 1525: "The
children
of God do good entirely voluntarily, seeking no reward, but
only the
glory and will of God, ready to do the good even if, assuming
the
impossible, there were neither heaven nor hell. _Filii autem Dei
gratuita voluntate
faciunt bonum, nullum praemium quaerentes, sed solam
gloriam
et voluntatem Dei, parati bonum facere, si per impossibile neque
regnum
neque infernus esset._" (E. v. a. 7, 234.)
.4pt
�2 t � � �� 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'>Selneccer
was recalled to Leipzig, where he arrived May 19, 1592, five
days
before his death, May 24, 1592.]
Having
through the influence of Selneccer, at Lichtenberg, obtained the
consent
of his clergy to his plans of unification, and, also in
accordance
with their desire, called Andreae to Saxony, Elector August
immediately
made arrangements for the contemplated general convention of
theologians.
It was held at Torgau, from May 28 to June 7, 1576, and
attended
by Selneccer, the Saxon ministers who had participated in the
Lichtenberg
convention, Andreae, Chemnitz, Andrew Musculus [General
Superintendent
of Brandenburg], Christopher Cornerus [professor in
Frankfurt-on-the-Oder;
born 1518; died 1549], and David Chytraeus [born
February
26, 1530, in Wuerttemberg; awarded degree of magister in
Tuebingen
when only fourteen years old; began his studies 1544 in
Wittenberg,
where he also heard Luther; was professor in Rostock from
1551 till
his death, June 25, 1600]. The result of the Torgau
deliberations,
in which much time was spent on the articles of Original
Sin and
Free Will, was the so-called _Torgau Book_. On the seventh of
June the
theologians informed the Elector that, on the basis of the
Swabian-Saxon
and the Maulbronn documents, they, as desired by him, had
agreed on
a _corpus doctrinae_.
The
_Torgau Book_ was essentially the _Swabian-Saxon Concordia_, recast
and
revised, as urged by Andreae, with special reference to the
desirable
features (enumerated above) of the _Maulbronn Formula_. The
majority
decided, says Chemnitz, that the Saxon Concordia should be
retained,
but in such a manner as to incorporate also the quotations
from
Luther, and whatever else might be regarded as useful in the
_Maulbronn
Formula_. The _Torgau Book_ contained the twelve articles of
the later
_Formula of Concord_ and in the same sequence; Article IX, "Of
the
Descent of Christ into Hell," had been added at Torgau. The Book was
entitled:
"_Opinion_ as to how the dissensions prevailing among the
theologians
of the _Augsburg Confession_ may, according to the Word of
God, be
agreed upon and settled in a Christian manner." It was signed as
"their
faith, doctrine, and confession" by the six men who were chiefly
responsible
for its form and contents: Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz,
Nicholas
Selneccer, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher
Cornerus.
The convention was closed with a service of thanksgiving to
Almighty
God for the blessed results of their labors and the happy
termination
and favorable issue of their discussions, Selneccer
delivering
the sermon. Similar services were held at other places,
notably
in Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony.
In a
letter to Hesshusius, Chemnitz says concerning the Torgau
Convention:
"Everything in this entire transaction occurred aside from,
beyond,
above, and contrary to the hope, expectation, and thought of
all. I
was utterly astounded, and could scarcely believe that these
things
were done when they were done. It seemed like a dream to me.
certainly
a good happy and desired beginning has been made toward the
restoration
of purity of doctrine, toward the elimination of
corruptions,
toward the establishment of a godly confession." In a
letter of
July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and Wigand, Andreae wrote in a
similar
vein, saying: "Often were they [Chemnitz and Chytraeus] almost
overwhelmed
with rejoicing and wonder that we were there [at Torgau]
brought
to such deliberation. Truly, this is the change of the right
hand of
the Most High, which ought also to remind us that since the
truth no
longer suffers, we should do everything that may contribute to
the
restoration of good feeling." (Richard, 428. 430.)
