XVI.

PART II.

as such, the doctrine of justification by faith alone; CENT. the necessity of good works to eternal salvation; the number of the sacraments; the jurisdiction claimed 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 defenders 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 apostasy 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 Melanethon 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.

[u] This controversy was called Adiaphoristick; and Melancthon and his followers Adiaphorists, from the Greek word ddiwpogos, 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.

[x] See above, note [].

CENT. are not essentially concerned, it be lawful to yield XVI. to the enemies of the truth?

SECT. III.

PART II.

foot by

cerning the

of good works.

XXIX. This debate concerning things indifferent became, as might well have been expected, A contro- a fruitful source of other controversies, which versy set on were equally detrimental to the tranquillity of the George church, and to the cause of the Reformation. Major, con- The first to which it gave rise was the warm disnecessity pute 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 mode1 rate 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.

SECT. III.

forth with redoubled fury. On the other hand, CENT. Major complained of the malice or ignorance of XVI. 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 [z].

XXX. From the same source that produced the The synerdispute concerning the necessity of good works, gisticalconarose the synergistical controversy. The Synergists [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 his grace was accompanied with a certain correspondent action of their will." The friends and disciples of Melancthon adopted this manner of speaking, and used the expressions

of

[z] Schlussenburg, lib. vii. Catal. Hæreticor.-Arnoldi Hist. Ecclesia, lib. xvi. cap. xxvii. p. 822.--Jo. Musæi Prælection. in Form. Concord. p. 181.-Arn. Grevii Memoria Joh. Westphalia, 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 (ouegysia), which signifies co-operation.

SECT. III.

CENT. of their master to describe the nature of the diXVI. vine agency in man's conversion. But this rePART II. presentation of the matter was far from being agreeable to the rigid Lutherans. They looked upon it as subversive of the true and genuine doctrine of Luther, relating to the absolute servitude of the human will [b], and the total inability of man to do any good action, or to bear any part in his own conversion; and hence they opposed the Synergists, or Semi-pelagians, with the utmost animosity and bitterness. The principal champions in this theological conflict were Sirigelius, who defended the sentiments of Melancthon with singular dexterity and perspicuity, and Flacius, who maintained the ancient doctrine of Luther of these doctors, as also the subject of their debate, a farther account will be given presently [c].

Flacius, by his intem

excites

many divi

church.

XXXI. During these dissensions, a new acaperate zeal, demy was founded at Jena by the dukes of SaxeWeimar, the sons of the famous John Frederick, sions in the whose unsuccessful wars with the emperor Charles V. had involved him in so many calamities, and deprived him of his electorial dominions. The noble founders of this academy, having designed it for the bulwark of the protestant religion, as it was taught and inculcated by Luther, were particularly careful in choosing such professors and divines as were remarkable for their attachment

to

[b] The doctrines of absolute predestination, irresistible grace, and human importance, were never carried to a more excessive length, nor maintained with a more virulent obstinacy, by any divine, than they were by Luther. But in these times he has very few followers in this respect, even among those that bear his name. But of this more hereafter.

[c] See Schlussenburg Catal. Hæreticor. lib. v. G. Arnold Histor. Eccles. lib. xvi. cap. xxviii. p. 826.-Bayle Dictionnaire, at the article Synergistes.-Salig. Histor. Augus. Confess. vol. iii. p. 474. 587. 880.-Musæi Prælict. in Formulam Concordia, p. 88.

XVI.

SECT. III.

PART II.

to the genuine doctrine of that great reformer, CENT. and their aversion to the sentiments of those moderate Lutherans, who had attempted by certain modifications and corrections, to render it less harsh and disgusting. And as none of the Lutheran doctors were so eminent on account of their uncharitable and intemperate zeal for this ancient doctrine, as Matthew Flacius, the virulent enemy of Melancthon, and all the PhiLippists, he was appointed in the year 1557, professor of divinity at Jena. The consequences of this nomination were, indeed, deplorable. For this turbulent and impetuous man, whom nature had formed with an uncommon propensity to foment divisions and propagate discord, did not only revive all the ancient controversies that had distracted the church, but also excited new debates; and sowed, with such avidity and success, the seeds of contention between the divines of Weimar and those of the electorate of Saxony, that a fatal schism in the Lutheran church was apprehended by many of its wisest members [d]. And indeed this schism would have been inevitable, if the machinations, and intrigues of Flacius had produced the desired effect. For, in the year 1559, he persuaded the dukes of Saxe-Weimar to order a refutation of the errors that had crept into the Lutheran church, and particularly of those that were imputed to the followers of Melancthon, to be drawn up with care, to be promulgated by authority, and to be placed among the other religious edicts and articles of faith that were in force in their dominions. But this pernicious design of dividing the church proved abortive; for the other Lutheran princes, who acted from the true

and

[d] See the famous letter of Augustus, elector of Saxony, concerning Flacius and his malignant attempts, which is published by Arn. Grevius in his Memoria Joh. Westphalia, p. 393.