The career of Flacius was, on the whole, a stormy and unhappy one. But, after all the abuse that has been heaped upon him, it cannot be denied that ho was a consistent upholder of the doctrines which he learned originally from Luther. The writers in the Keformed interest have generally treated him too severely ; an unfavorable view of him is given by Planck, Geschichte. des Protestant. Lihrbegrijfs. The best account of him is to be found in Preger, Mat- thias Flacius Illynctis u. seine Zeit (Erlangcn, 1859-Gl, 2 vols.), from a notice of which, in the Bibliotheca Sa' era (18G2, p. 22G), we make the following extracts: " If it was right for a sincere follower of Luther to es- pouse the cause of his deceased friend and teacher, and to show by the severest logic that the Lutheran Churcli
and in Ireland, of which archbishop Usher was then | was, under Melancthon's guidance, drifting away from primate. The king issued certain injunctions concern- I its moorings, then Flacius is to be exonerated from the iu'^ the bounds within which these points might be j charge of uncharitableness, and his plea must lie al- discussed. See Arminianism ; Calvinism ; Dokt. ' lowed, that the unhappy division was not chargeable
FLACIUS
585
FLAG
to him who defended the old Wittenberg theology, but tather to him who introduced innovations. We say nothiniij now about the truth of the one or the other view ; we only remark that Flacius was the undoubted champion of the genuine theolog}' of Saxony, as taught by Luther. We cannot, therefore, uphold Luther and condemn Flacius. In theology we cannot say that what Luther, as the first reformer, had a right to teach, Flacius, his inferior in authority, had not a right to maintain against so great a man as IVIelancthon ; for the theologian swears allegiance not to men, but to principles. Flacius could justly reply to all who thus reproached liim, that if Melancthon was great, truth
was greater I5ut how stands the matter as it
affects the intellectual and moral character of the two cliief combatants ? Flacius clearly had Luther's great authority on his side, and that was enough for him. Melancthon saw that the Genevan and Strasburg the- ologians entertained clearer and more scriptural views of tiie subject than Luther and the party of Flacius. With him the authority of Luther was not final. Ac- cording to Flacius, all questions of theology and church usages were to be decided by the authority of the Bible wid of Luther. According to Melancthon, they were to be decided by the authoritv of the Bible and of rea- son. Both were sincere and deeply in earnest. Both make out their points hy irresistible logic. Schmidt, in the new Life of Melancthon just published by him, vindicates Melancthon's character in this controversy triumphantly. Preger has done tlie same for Flacius. Flacius shows more firmness and tenacity, Melanc- thon more conciliation and forbearance. Tlie former had such a reverence for truth, or for what seemed to be truth, that he forgot tlie respect due to a great and good man. He was mercilessly but conscientiously contentious. The latter was so amiable and fond of peace tliat he would for the sake of it j'ield what he might have maintained. He was never a polemic, ex- cept by necessity It is a somewhat remarkable
fact that Flacius was incessantly persecuted, and often driven from place to place for teaching exactly what Luther taught. He was evidently a tenacious man, and born to be a polemic ; but, notwithstanding his bad name for disputatiousness, he was far less violent and abusive in his language tlian his opponents, and more measured and unim passioned tlian Luther. It was the sharpness of his logic, and the unsparing se- verity with which he exposed to the light of day any deviation from Luther, that so galled his opponents. They charged him, and perhaps not unjusth% with as- suming to be the guardian of the Church. He did, in- deed, endeavor to persuade princes and magistrates to watch over the purity of Christian doctrine, and con- fessed that he called every man to account, no matter what his rank or position was, w'ho either openly or secretly attempted to destroy what Luther liad built up. At the same time, he affirmed that he did it as a faithful son of the Churcli, doing only what everj^ one was liound to do, namelj^ to guard its purity with all the power and skill he possessed. He furthermore maintained that, as the pupil and friend of Luther, he owed it to his memory to defend him and liis doctrines against all assaults, even though they were made at Wittenberg itself, and by no less a man than INIelanc- thon. He was undoubtedly governed by conscientious motives, however he may have erred l)oth in matters of doctrine and of expediency ; but when he trusted in princes to preserve the orthodoxy of the Church, he found, to his grief, that he trusted to a broken reed. Though unfortunate in his life, and a wanderer and fugitive in his old age, and apparently unsuccessful in the chief aim of his life, still he ranks third among the men of his age in his influence upon the doctrines of the old Lutheran Church. He has, indeed, been long almost forgotten, except as an ecclesiastical histo- rian." The chief writings of Flacius are Omnin Scrip- ta Latina contra adiaphorislicas J'raudes edita (Magde-