XVI. relation to the eucharist [r], yet he did not con-C EN T. sider their controversy with the divines of Swit- SECT.III. zerland on that subject, as a matter of sufficient PART II. moment to occasion a breach of church-communion and fraternal concord, between the contending parties. He thought that this happy concord might be easily preserved by expressing the doctrine of the eucharist, and Christ's presence in that ordinance, in general and ambiguous terms, which the two churches might explain according to their respective systems. Such were the sentiments of Melancthon, which, though he did not entirely conceal during the life of Luther, he delivered, nevertheless, with great circumspection and modesty, yielding always to the authority of his colleague, for whom he had a sincere friendship, and of whom also he stood in awe. But no sooner were the eyes of Luther closed, than he inculcated with the greatest plainness and freedom, what he had before only hinted at with timorousness and cau Y 3 tion. ✪ [r] It is somewhat surprising to hear Dr Mosheim affirming that Melancthon adopted the sentiments of Luther in relation to the eucharist, when the contrary is well known. It is true, in the writings of Melancthon, which were published before the year 1529, or 1530, there are passages, which shew that he had not, as yet, thoroughly examined the controversy relating to the nature of Christ's presence in the eucharist. It is also true, that during the disputes carried on between Westphal and Calvin, after the death of Luther, concerning the real presence, he did not declare himself in an open manner for either side (which, however, is a presumptive proof of his leaning to that of Calvin), but expressed his sorrow at these divisions, and the spirit of animosity by which they were inflamed. But whoever will be at the pains to read the letters of Melancthon to Calvin upon this subject, or those extracts of them that are collected by Hospinian, in the second volume of his Historia Sacramentaria, p. 428. will be persuaded, that he looked upon the doctrine of Consubstantiation not only as erroneous, but even as idolatrous; and that nothing but the fear of inflaming the present divisions, and of not being seconded, prevented him from declaring his sentiments openly. See also Dictionnaire de Bayle, art. MELANCTHON, note L. € EN T. tion. The eminent rank MELANCTHON held a- The adia phoristic controver sy, or the dispute many. His doctrine accordingly was censured and opposed; and thus the church was deprived of the tranquillity it had enjoyed under LUTHER, and exhibited an unhappy scene of animosity, contention, and discord. XXVIII. The rise of these unhappy divisions must be dated from the year 1548, when CHARLES V. attempted to impose upon the Germans the famous edict, called the Interim. matters of MAURICE, the new elector of Saxony, desirous to an indiffer- know how far such an edict ought to be respected ent nature. in his dominions, assembled the doctors of Wit concerning temberg and Leipsic in the last mentioned city, and proposed this nice and critical subject to their serious examination. Upon this occasion MELANCTHON, Complying with the suggestions of that lenity and moderation that were the great and leading principles in the whole course of his. duct and actions, declared it as his opinion, that, in matters of an indifferent nature, compliance was due to the imperial edicts [s]. But in the class of matters indifferent, this great man and his associates placed many things which had appeared of the highest importance to LUTHER, and could not, of consequence, be considered as indifferent by his true disciples [t]. For he regarded as [] The piece in which Melancthon and his associates delivered their sentiments relating to things indifferent, is commonly called in the German language, Das Leipziger Interim, and was republished at Leipsic in 1721, by Biekius, in a work entitled, Das dreyfache Interim. [/] If they only are the true disciples of Luther, who submit to his judgment, and adopt his sentiments in theological matters, many doctors of that communion, and our historian among the rest, must certainly be supposed to have forfeited that title, as will abundantly appear hereafter. Be that as it may, Melancthon can scarcely, if at all, be justified in placing XVI. as such, the doctrine of justification by faith alone; CENT. the necessity of good works to eternal salvation; the SECT III. number of the sacraments; the jurisdiction claimed PARTI by the pope and the bishops; extreme unction; the observation of certain religious festivals, and several superstitious rites and ceremonies. Hence arose that violent scene of contention and discord, that was commonly called the Adiaphoristic [u] controversy, which divided the church during many years, and proved highly detrimental to the progress of the Reformation. The defende rs of the primitive doctrines of Lutheranism, with FLACIUS at their head, attacked with incredible bitterness and fury the doctors of Wittemberg and Leipsic, and particularly MELANCTHON, by whose counsel and influence every thing relating to the Interim had been conducted, and accused them of apostacy from the true religion. MELANCTHON, on the other hand, seconded by the zeal of his friends and disciples, justified his conduct with the utmost spirit and vigour [w]. In this unlucky debate the two following questions were principally discussed: First, whether the matter that seemed indifferent to MELANCTHON were so in reality? This his adversaries obstinately denied [x]. Secondly, whether, in things of an indifferent nature, and in which the interests of religion Y 4 are placing in the class of things indifferent the doctrines relating to faith and good works, which are the fundamental points of the Christian religion, and, if I may use such an expression, the very hinges on which the gospel turns. [] This controversy was called Adiaphoristick; and Melancthon and his followers Adiaphorists, from the Greek word asiaPogos, which signifies indifferent. [w] Schlussenburgi Catalog. Hæreticor. lib. xiii.-Arnold's German work, entitled, Kirchen und Ketzer Historie, lib. xvi. cap. xxvi. p. 816.-Salig. Histor. Aug. Confess. vol. i. p. 611. The German work, entitled, Unschuldige Nachrichten, A. 1702, p. 339 393.-Luc. Osiandri Epitome Histor. Eccles. Centur. xvi. p. 502. See above, note [], CENT. are not essentially concerned, it be lawful to yield SECT 11 to the enemies of the truth? XVI. A contro foot by George necessity of good works. PARTII XXIX. This debate concerning things indifferent became, as might well have been expected, versy set on a fruitful source of other controversies, which were equally detrimental to the tranquillity of the Major, con- church, and to the cause of the Reformation. cerning the The first to which it gave rise was the warm dispute concerning the necessity of good works, that was carried on with such spirit against the rigid Lutherans, by GEORGE MAJOR, an eminent teacher of theology at Wittemberg, MELANCTHON had long been of opinion, that the necessity of good works, in order to the attainment of everlasting salvation, might be asserted and taught, as conformable to the truths revealed in the gospel; and both he and his colleagues declared this to be their opinion, when they were assembled at Leipsic, in the year 1548, to examine the famous edict already mentioned [y]. This declaration was severely censured by the rigid disciples of LUTHER, as contrary to the doctrine and sentiments of their chief, and as conformable both to the tenets and interests of the church of Rome; but it found an able defender in MAJOR, who, in the year 1552, maintained the necessity of good works against the extravagant assertions of AMSDORF. Hence arose a new controversy between the rigid and moderate Lutherans, which was carried on with that keenness and animosity, that were peculiar to all debates of a religious nature during this century. In the course of this warm debate, AMSDORF was so far transported and infatuated by his excessive zeal for the doctrine of LUTHER, as to maintain, that good works were an impediment to salvation; from which imprudent and odious expression the flame of controversy received new fuel, and broke forth [y] The Interim of Charles V. XVI. forth with redoubled fury. On the other hand, C E N T. MAJOR Complained of the malice or ignorance of his adversaries, who explained his doctrine in a PART II. manner quite different from that in which he intended it should be understood; and, at length, he renounced it entirely, that he might not appear fond of wrangling, or be looked upon as a disturber of the peace of the church. This step did not, however, put an end to the debate, which was still carried on, until it was terminated at last by the Form of Concord [x]. gistical XXX. From the same source that produced the The syner dispute concerning the necessity of good works, controvers arose the synergistical controversy. The Syner-sy. gists [a], whose doctrine was almost the same with that of the Semi-pelagians, denied that God was the only agent in the conversion of sinful man; and affirmed, that man co-operated with divine grace in the accomplishment of this salutary purpose. Here also Melancthon renounced the doctrine of Luther; at least, the terms he employs, in expressing his sentiments concerning this intricate subject, are such as Luther would have rejected with horror; for in the conference at Leipsic, already mentioned, the former of these great men did not scruple to affirm, that God drew to himself, and converted adult persons in such a manner, that the powerful impression of bis grace was accompanied with a certain correspondent action of their will. The friends and disciples of MELANGTHON adopted this manner of speaking, and used the expressions of [x] Schlussenburg, lib. vii. Catal. Hæreticor.-Arnoldi Hist. Ecclesiæ, lib. xvi. cap. xxvii. p. 822-Jo. Musei Prælection. in Form. Concord. p. 181.-Am. Grevii Memoria Joh. Westphali, p. 166. [a] As this controversy turned upon the co-operation of the human will with the divine grace, the persons, who maintained this joint agency, were called Synergists, from a Greek word (surgyua), which signifies co-operation. |