Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4,25 Mb.
Date conversion27.04.2018
Size4,25 Mb.
1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38

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‑


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



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

ing without a license and had to pay heavy costs

besides being confined in jail for several weeks.

He wrote a catechism which was attacked by G.

Keith, when he wrote a spirited reply praised by

I. Mather. He has been regarded as the founder,

of Presbyterianism in America, but there are rec­

ords of at least two other ministers before him.

BiBLIOGRAPHY: C. A. Briggs, American Presbyterianism,

New York, 1885; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American

Pulpit, iii. 1‑4, ib. 1858; G. P. Hays, Presbyterians, pp.

83, 74‑78, ib. 1892; R. E. Thompson, American Church

History Series, vol. vi., ib. 1895; J. H. Patton, Popular

Hint. of the Presbyterian Church, U. 3. A., ib. 1900; C. L.

Thompson, The Presbyterians, ib. 1903; DNB, xuv. 390­


MALACHI, mal'a‑cal, BOOB OF: The book

which, in the English Version, closes the Old Tes­

tament. It is debated whether Malachi is a per­

sonal name, or merely official (" my messenger "),

or used symbolically. Against the supposition

that it is a personal name Hengstenberg uses the

following arguments: (1) the super­

The scription gives no information respect­

Title. ing his antecedents; (2) the oldest

Jewish tradition appears to know

nothing about him; (3) it is derived from iii. 1, and

is impossible as a personal name since to a prophet

it could not be given by men, but by God alone.

Hengstenberg, therefore, considers the name as

either ideal, or an official title. The first of these

arguments was by Hengstenberg himself regarded

as not cogent in view of the meager knowledge pos­

sessed concerning other prophets. The second can

not be accepted, since the translators of the Sep­

tuagint rendered the word " my messenger " in iii.

1, but put Malachias (as a personal name) in the

title. As to the third, may be abbrevi­

ated from a form Malachiah, " Messenger of Yah­

weh," which would satisfy the form in the Greek,

and meet the objection of Hengstenberg.

The date of the prophecy is disputed. Recently

Stade, Cornill and Kautzsch have argued for a date

prior to the time of Ezra, although the entire point

of view of the book, resting upon the institution of

the law, implies that Ezra had already come. Stade's

argument, based upon the fact that Malachi makes

no reference to Ezra's measures against

The mixed marriages, to a publication of

Date. the law, while it regards the priests as

Levitea, loses force inasmuch as the

same features are found in Neh. xiii., which deals

with events later than Ezra's measures. The book

can belong neither before Ezra nor under his leader­

ship, since in that case mention of it would have

been made in the book of Ezra, se is seen by the ref­

erence to Haggai and Zechariah in Ezra v. 1, vi. 14;

and the absence of mention in Nehemiah is against

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

before his hearers the love which led Yahweh to

choose Jacob while he rejected Esau.

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.

Malachy's importance in Irish ecclesiastical his­

tory is analogous to that of Boniface in the Ger­

man. The result of his work was indeed a loss of

independence for his people, but it was more than

compensated by the gain in order, discipline, and

higher culture. His life was written before 1152

by his admiring friend Bernard, and is one of the

most finished works of the greatest of medieval

stylists. It doubtless contributed to his canon­

ization, which was pronounced by Clement III. in

1190. The works attributed to him by later wri­

ters are almost certainly not his; some of them

may belong to an Irish Franciscan of the same

name who was at Oxford about 1390. The famous

prophecy bearing his name, which consists of 141

mottos for all the popes from Celestine II. to

the end of time, was first published by the

Benedictine Wion in 1595, and is now thought to

have been written by a partizan of Cardinal Si­

moncelli to support his candidacy in the conclave

of 1590. (H. BZSHMElt.)

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.

1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page