MAJOR, JOHN: Scotch Roman Catholic historian and scholastic divine; b. at Gleghornie (22 m. n.e. of Edinburgh) in 1469; d. at St. Andrews (32 m. n.n.e. of Edinburgh) 1550. He studied at the universities of Cambridge and Paris (M.A., of Paris, 1496; D.D., 1505), became a regent of the latter university in 1496, also a fellow and teacher in arts and philosophy; accepted the position of principal regent and professor of philosophy and divinity at the University of Glasgow, 1518; returned to the University of Paris, 1525; went to St. Andrews in 1531, and was made pro volt of St. Salvator's College in the university there, 1533, holding the position till his death. In theology Major was in essentials a stanch Roman Catholic, denouncing sternly the Hussite, Wyclifite, and Lutheran movements, but also opposing the luxurious living and tendency to expensive and grandiose architecture manifested by the monastic orders; intellectually he was a schoolman, opposed to the newer spirit then entering the universities. One of his titles to fame is the part he had in the education of John Knox (q.v.). The work by which he is now best known is Historic Majoris Britannice, tam Anglice quam Sconce (Paris, 1521, republished, Edinburgh, 1740; Eng. transl. in the Scottish History Society's Publications, vol. x., Edinburgh, 1892, containing also a life of Major, an estimate of his character and writings, and a collection of his prefaces). Other works were a new edition of H. Pardo's Medulla dyalectiees (Paris, 1505); a volume on logic (1508); commentaries on the "Sentences" of Lombard (1509-17; new ed., 3 parts, 1510-28); and a commentary on the Gospels (1529).

Bibliography: Besides the life in the Eng. transl. of his "History," ut sup., consult: P. H. Brown, George Bu chanan, Edinburgh, 1890: idem, John Knox, i 13, 14, 20-28, bo-52, et passim, London, 1895; T. G. Law, in Scottish Review, July, 1892; DNB, axxv. 388-388.

MAJORISTIC CONTROVERSY: A Lutheran controversy of the sixteenth century regarding the doctrine of justification by faith. The sixth article of the Augsburg Confession, like Melanchthon, maintained the necessity of good works as the necessary outcome of faith, not with the intention of attributing any merits to good works in themselves, but only to emphasize the necessary connection between faith and works. In his report on the Conference of Regensburg (see Regensburg, Conference of), Major had unmistakably taught the doctrine of faith and grace and had sharply attacked the view which maintained that the justi-

135

fled fulfil the law through works. The Leipsic Interim, it is true, repudiated any merits of good works for justification, yet it advocated the necessity of works in virtue of the divine commandment, not for their intrinsic value, but for the sake of Christ's merit and promise. When Major was about to enter upon his activity at Eisleben, Amsdorf (q.v.) published his treatise Dana Dr. Pommer und Dr. Major Aergernis and Verwirrung angerichtet (1551), in which he accused the latter of teaching the necessity of good works for salvation, and Major replied with his pamphlet Auf des ehrwiirdigen Hewn N. van Amsdorf's Schrift Anxwart (Wittenberg, 1552), affirming his full belief in Bola fide, although at the same time he defended the thesis that good works are necessary for salvation, for as none are saved by evil works, none are saved without good works. Thereupon Amsdorf, Flacius, and Callus, each in a special treatise, roused the whole Lutheran . Church. The clergy of Mansfeld, who had received Major with suspicion at Eisleben, requested him to give an account of his teachings; and after Count Albrecht had expelled him from the city without a trial, he published a sermon on Paul's conversion (Leipsic, 1553), in which he argued that faith can not exist without works, just as the sun can not exist without splendor. Works, according to him, are not required as meritorious, but as a token of obedience, and are not needed to gain salvation, but to retain it. Where they are not present, it is a sure sign that faith is dead. This explanation, however, failed to satisfy his opponents. Amadorf still maintained that Major was a Roman Catholic, in that he taught the necessity of merit and the cooperation of faith and works in the attainment of righteousness and salvation, while Flacius pointed out that it would be impossible, according to Major's view, to convert the dying or save children. Callus more pertinently attacked the sentence that salvation must be retained by good works, and showed how liable to misunderstanding these words were, although he did not acknowledge that the object of his critique was not a false doctrine, but only the awkward expression of a correct thought. The Manafeld theologians, on the other hand, conceded in their Be denken (Magdeburg, 1553) that there was nothing offensive in Major's doctrine, and contented themselves with the statement that, for various reasons, his phraseology should be avoided. In his further publications Major sought t0 guard his view against misinterpretations, but was unwilling to surrender the wording of his disputed sentence. The controversy still raged, however, and in 1562 he finally decided to sacrifice the misinterpreted passage, although he could not refrain from giving vent to his anger at Flacius and his adherents, and thus exposed himself to renewed attacks. The only theologian of reputation who defended Major was Justus Menius (q.v.), who was accused by Amsdorf, Schnepf, and Stolz of being an adherent of Major, while John Frederic forbade him to teach. He fled to Wittenberg, where he discussed the matter with Melanchthon, but soon returned to Goths after the court had assured him of his safety. His treatise Von der Bereitung zum seligen Sterben (1556)

offered, however, a new opportunity for attack, since he maintained that the beginning of the new life as wrought by the Holy Spirit in the faithful was "necessary for salvation," and that salvation could be lost by sin, unless preserved in a pious heart, a good conscience, and a true faith. Thereupon Flacius accused Menius of renewing the heresy of Major. Menius was suspended from office, summoned to Eisenach, and tried by Victorin Strigel, whereupon Amsdorf and his adherents drew up seven theses and insisted upon the signature of Menius. To their surprise he signed them without hesitation, declaring that his teachings had always conformed to them. The adherents of Flacius looked upon this act as a recantation, but they actually obtained nothing but a strict censorship which was soon to involve them in their turn, while the final decision wad merely that Major and Menius had confused faith and works. Amsdorf, however, who had maintained as early as 1554 that good works are not necessary for salvation, now went so far as to declare that good works are injurious to salvation, but Menius escaped these unfortunate dissensions by resigning his offices in Thuringia.

Melanchthon had at first held aloof from these controversies, but after Major had been publicly accused by the theologians of Weimar in their fatal protest at Worms in 1557, he declared that Major's words had been evoked by the Antinomians, who considered justification by faith compatible with a sinful life; while he also believed that men like Amsdorf should be restrained by the thesis that new obedience is necessary according to the divine order and the sequence of cause and effect. The controversy of Major was revived in the March of Brandenburg from 1558 to 1563 between J. Agricola and A. Musculus as opposed to Provost Buchholzer in Berlin and Professor Abdias Prwtorius in Frankfort-on-the-Oder. It ended with the defeat of the adherents of Melanchthon. The theses of both Major and Amsdorf are rejected in the fourth article of the Formula of Concord, which upholds the necessity of good works in so far as faith is never alone. Works belong to faith as heat and light to fire, and are, therefore, not injurious, but are proofs of eternal life in the faithful.

(G. Kawerau.)

Bibliography: C. Sehliiaselburg, Catalopua hereticorum, book vii., Frankfort, 1599; C. A. Balig, Historie der aupa-

burgischen Confession, i . 837 sqq., iii. 38 sqq., Halle, 1730;

G. J. Planck, GeachvChte der EQ(dU% , . . Uffilrl qp0.

ieatantiacken Lehrbegrijja, iv. 469 sqq., Leipsic. 1798;

W. 1'reger, M. Flacius, i, 356 sqq., Erlangen, 1859; F. H. R. Frank, Theologie der Concordienformet ii. 148 sqq., 4 vols., Erlangen, 1858-85; G. L. Schmidt, Justus Menius,

ii. 184 sqq., Gotha, 1887; J. C. L. Gieseler, Church History, ed. H. B. Smith, iv. 438, New York, 1888; G. Wolf,

Zur Geschichte der deutschen Protestanten 1666-68, Berlin, 1888; Kurtz, Church History, ii. 352, New York, 1894; F. Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 898 sqq., Haile, 1908; Moeller, Christian Church, vol. iii, passim.