Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Part 17

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 G.o.d salvation, received by grace through faith, cannot be preserved; hence obedience toward G.o.d 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, da.s.s 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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, da.s.s 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. Att.i.tude 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 G.o.d'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, G.o.dless, 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage, he first eliminated the _causa sine qua non_ and subst.i.tuted _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 const.i.tute 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 h.e.l.l, 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. Ill.u.s.trating this point Flacius wrote: "Can one become a carpenter without the house which he builds afterwards? Can one make a wagon or s.h.i.+p without driving or sailing? I say, yes! Or, dear Doctor, are we accustomed to say: Driving and sailing is necessary to the wagon and s.h.i.+p respectively, and it is impossible for a wagon or s.h.i.+p to be made without driving or sailing? I hear: No!" (375.) "n.o.body 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 s.h.i.+p; riding is necessary to a horse; but thus they speak: Wagons and horses are necessary to riding, a s.h.i.+p is necessary to sailing." (391.)

The charge that Major's proposition robbed Christians of their a.s.surance 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 a.s.sertion 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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, G.o.d a.s.sisting 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, _c.u.m 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 princ.i.p.al 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 a.s.sociate with them, because I well know that the said Illyricus with his adherents does not seek the honor of G.o.d, 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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.seruit; 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 att.i.tude 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 G.o.d 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 const.i.tuted 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 a.n.a.lysis, 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 a.s.serting 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 t.i.tle of his tract, reading as follows: "_Da.s.s 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 a.s.serted, 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sertion 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 prost.i.tute 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 grat.i.tude to G.o.d, than that works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men may be d.a.m.ned 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: G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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.)