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 provolt 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). BIHLIOaaAPHT: Besides the life in the Eng. tranal. of his " History," ut sup., consult: P. H. Brown, George Buchanan, 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‑
1815 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
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 (Leipaic, 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 Flaciua 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 Bedenken (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 Yon 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 Meniua. 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 Meniua 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. KAwERAV.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Sehliiaselburg, Catalopua hereticorum, book vii., Frankfort, 1599; C. A. Balig, Hiatorie der aupa‑
burgiachen Confession, i. 837 sqq., iii. 38 sqq., Halle, 1730;
G. J. Planck, GeachvChte der EQ(dU% , . . Uffilrl qp0.
ieatantiacken Lehrbegrijja, iv. 469 sqq., Leipsie. 1798;
W. 1'reger, M. Flaciua, i, 356 sqq., Erlangen, 1859; F. H. R. Frank, Theologie der Concordienformet ii. 148 sqq., 4 vols., Erlangen, 1858‑85; G. L. Schmidt, Justus Meniua,
ii. 184 sqq., Goths, 1887; J. C. L. Gieseler, Church History, ed. H. B. Smith, iv. 438, New York, 1888; G. Wolf,
Zur Geachichte der deatachen Proteatanten 1666‑68, Berlin,
1888; Kurtz, Church History, ii. 352, New York, 1894;
F. Loofa, Dogmengeachichte, pp. 898 sqq., Haile, 1908;
Moeller, Christian Church, vol. iii, passim.
MAgEMIE, md'k6‑mf, FRANCIS: American Presbyterian; b. at Rathmelton (32 m. n.e. of Donegal), Ireland, 1658; d. in Accomac Co., Va., in the summer of 1708. He was educated at Glasgow University and was ordained as a missionary to America by the presbytery of Laggan, Ireland, in 1682. He itinerated in Maryland, Virginia, and
Malachi THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 136
Barbados, and is said to have founded the church
at Snow Hill, Md. In 1704 he went to England to
secure aid for the Presbyterian Church in America,
and on his return in 1706 he helped to organize at
Philadelphia the first presbytery in America. In
1707 he was arrested at Newtown, L. L, for preach
the activity of the prophet during Nehemiah's gov
ernorship. Nagelsbach, KtThler, Orelli, and Reuss
rightly place the book in the period between the
two visits of Nehemiah, the ground being the refer‑
ence to the " governor " in Mal. i. 8, who, however, can not be Nehemiah (of. Neh. v. 8, 10, 14‑18) and suits best the governor of the time between Nehemiah's visits. The content of the book agrees with this period, since reference is made to three points, marriage with foreign women, observance of the Sabbath, and maintenance of the temple services through stated offerings (cf. Neh. x. 28 sqq.). Neh, sill, has Neh. x. in view, and Malachi agrees in standpoint with Neh. xiii. At the coming of Ezra the temple service was a charge on the state treasury; Later under Nehemiah the Jews undertook to support the temple by their own contributions as a fulfilment of the law (Neh. x. 33), but became lax in performance after Nehemiah's departure. Out of this arose the reproaches which appear both in Malachi and in the book of Nehemiah, which therefore fix the date.
The prophet takes in at a glance past, present,
and future. Starting with the past, he sets plainly
The Con‑ In contrast to this love of long standtents. ing, the prophet sets the present conduct of the people. People and priest sin in that they bring diseased offerings, reduce the temple revenues, and disgrace the divine name by mixed marriages. For these things comes the judgment, which is to be ushered in by a great messenger, whom Yahweh calls emphatically " my messenger," but who, in turn, is only the forerunner of a still greater, the angel of the covenant, with whom Yahweh himself will appear, and this messenger, as the counterpart of Moses, will reveal the new law to God's people. The prophet determines yet more closely the time of the coming of the forerunner, when he says that he is the prophet Elijah, who will come to convert young and old. Then the Lord will return to his temple, and the great and terrible day of judgment will begin. But the judgment has two sides, the destruction of the ungodly, and the refining and purification of the righteous. While Malachi's minatory sermon seems to lay stress upon mere externals, upon the outward observance of the law, in reality he cites the cases of disobedience merely se examples in order to exhort the people to such conduct as befits those in the presence of the day of final reckoning. Israel's duty‑this is his exhortation‑is in general and in particular conscientiously to obey the law. Malachi has, upon the basis of passages like i. 11, iii. 3, been charged with laying undue emphasis upon sacrifice and thus with being in sharp contrast with the earlier prophets. But alongside of these passages should be placed i. 10, which (like Isa. i. 10 sqq.) shows that not sacrifice in itself but as an evidence of righteous intention is what the prophet has in mind. (W. Volcst.)
BIHL7o6AAPHT: The earlier commentaries are obsolete.
Modern commentaries are by G. A. Smith, The Book of
the Twelve, London, 1898: L. Reinke, Giessen, 1858; A.
K&hler, Erlangen, 1885: C. F. Keil, Eng. transl., Edin
burgh, 1888; W. Drake, in Bible Commentary, London,
1878; T. T. Perowne, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge,
1890; C. von Orelli, Twelve Minor Prophets, New York,
1893; W. Nowack, GSttingen, 1903; E. B. Pussy, Minor
Prophets, latest ed., London, 1907: O. leopescul, Cserno
wita, 1908. Consult also: E. W. Hengetenberg, Beitrdpe
tur Einteilunp in daa AZte Testament, 3 vole., Berlin 18311839: W. B&hme, inZATW, vii (1887), 210 eqq.; F. W. Farrar, The Minor Prophets, London, 1890; J. Wellhausen, Kleine Propheten, Berlin, 1898; C. C. Torrey, in JBL, avii. 1. 1898 (important); works cited under BIBLICAL IxTnonucriox; MESSIAH; also DB, iii. 218‑222; EB, iii. 29072910; JE, viii. 27b‑278.
MALACHY, mal'a‑ki, 0')IIORGt1IR, SAINT: Archbishop of Armagh; b. at Armagh, Ireland, between 1093 and 1095; d. at Clairvauz (33 m. s.e. of Troyes), France, Nov. 2 or 3, 1148. He came of a noble family, and received the usual education at the hands of Irish monks and clergy, after which he attached himself to the recluse Iomhar, who lived in a cell adjoining the church of Armagh. Iomhar (d, in Rome, 1134) was a strong supporter of the Roman tendency, and won his disciple for the came cause. Malachy was ordained priest about 1119, to be chosen a bishop shortly afterward and assigned to the district of Armagh. Determined to introduce Roman customs as far as possible, he felt the need of knowing them more thoroughly and of forming closer relations with like‑minded prelates in the south of Ireland, so he spent some time with Bishop Malchus at Lismore in Munster. In 1124 he was chosen bishop of Connor in Ulster; but the see was laid waste two years later by one of the northern chieftains, and he and his clergy were driven out. He found a refuge at Ibrach in Kerry, where he founded a monastery; but in 1129 he was recalled to Armagh by the choice of Bishop Celsus on his dying bed as his successor. This was an uncanonical coup d'dat on the part of Celsus, who was an adherent of the Roman party, and the conservative party refused to recognize Malachy and set up a claimant of their own who gained possession of the see. In 1132 the papal legate Gilbert and Malchus of Lismore took a second revolutionary step by solemnly creating Malachy archbishop of Armagh, and urged him to go and assert his rights. The rival prelate, however, retained his footing in the city until his death in 1134. His successor was driven out by violence, and a compromise finally reached with him by a money payment. In 1136 Malachy appointed the monk Gelasius as his successor at Armagh and took himself the bishopric of Down in Ulster. He could now set to work at his plans for reorganizing the Irish Church, and in 1139 he went to Rome to ask that the gallium be given to two Irish archbishops, another to be named for Cashel in the south. Inno. cent II. made him papal legate for Ireland and sanctioned the erection of the archbishopric of Cashel, but refused to grant the pallia until they should be requested by the unanimous voice of a general Irish council. Malachy returned in 1140, passing by Clairvaux to consult with St. Bernard as to the introduction of Cistercian monks into Ireland, and renouncing only at the papal com, wand his desire to take the cowl himself in the famous abbey. He busied himself in the duties of his station, and won universal reverence by his saintly humility and asceticism, earning also the reputation of a miracle worker. In 1148 he succeeded in inducing a council at Innispatrick to ask for the pallis again, and so to win formal papal sanction for the reorganization of the Irish Church.
He started on this mission, but fell ill at Clairvaua, and died a fortnight later, St. Bernard preaching the sermon at his funeral in the abbey church.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. O'Hanlon, Life of $t. Madacky O'Mor
pair, Dublin, 1859; A. Bellesheim, Qeechichte der katAola‑
ashen Rirche in IrZand, vol. i., Mains, 1890; KL, viii. 639‑b42. On the prophecy consult: C. F. Menestrier, Refutation des prophetiea . . . our lee elections des gapes, Paris, 1689; J. J. I. von D611inger, Fables Respecting the Popes, New York, 1872; The Marquis of Bute, in Dublin Review, Oct., 1885.
MALALAS, JOHN: Greek chronographer; lived at Antioch in the first half of the sixth century. He is presumably identical with a Johannes Rhetor whose work Evagrius (q.v.) used as one of his sources; he was probably a Syrian of Greek training and by profession an advocate (mala4=rhetar). Under his name the Greek text of a general Chronicle (Chronographia) has been transmitted (ed. L. Dindorf in CSHB, Bonn, 1831; reprinted MPG, gevii. 9‑970) which reaches, in its present form, to 563, but was originally, perhaps, continued as far as 573. Whether the wOTkl 111 1t8 Whole eg• tent of eighteen books, is by but one author, is fairly open to question. Books i.‑xvii. and the early portion of xviii. appear to have been written prior to 540; whereas the greater part of book xviii., wherein Constantinople, not Antioch, is the center of the situation, was not closed till after the death of Justinian, and was then consolidated with the other books. The dogmatic character is not uniform, the original Monophysite treatment bearing the appearance of having been revised by an orthodox editor. Book xviii. certainly emanates from an orthodox writer. The last four books, which narrate the events from Emperor Anastasius down, are important as a source for ecclesiastical history, in spite of the puerility of conception and the narrow horizon. Being in high favor as a book for the
people, the Chronicle Wo Rpeat@dly tran0eri6d
and copied, but ultimately it was superseded by later annalists (Theophanes, Georgics Monachus, Zonaras), and has thus been preserved in only one manuscript, while even this is an abridged revision (Codex Baroccianus of the twelfth oentury in the Bodleian library at Oxford; cf. J. B.