Synergism {(rvvtpyen), to icorh togefher) is the doc- trine that the human will co-operates with divine grace in the work of conversion, as it was advanced by Kras- mus in his controversy with Luther, and afterwards represented by Melancthon and his school. Luther taught that sin had absolutely ruined man. making of liis reason a ravenous beast and of his will a slave, so tliat it is im[)0ssible for him to contribute in any way tovvanls his conversion; and in the tirst edition of his J^ocri Comiimms Melanethon's teaching is in entire har- mony with Luther's view. Such a view necessarily re- sulted in the doctrine of predestination, and both Lu- ther and Melancthon traced everything back to God as the first cause, the sin of Judas no less than the con- version of I'aul. It was, however, an unnatural view for Molanetlion to hold, and he receded from it into the dualistic idea that human liberty must be recognised as a factor in conversion by the side of the divine ne- cessity. In the third edition of the Loci sin is derived from the will of the devil and of man, instead of that of (iod; not everything, conscMpiently, is to be ascribed to the divine causality, and there is a realm of contin- gencies by the side of the realm of necessity which is i'ounded on the freedom of the human will. A certain measure of vt)litional freedom to perform outward works of obedience to the divine law remains to man even af- ter the Fall; but he cannot, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, (juantitatively and qualitatively fultil that law, and accordingly in every good action three causes work together (uvvkpyoi'cn) — the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the human will, which does not resist tlie Word of God, and is at times described directly as Ja- cullas sese applicundi ad gratidm. The doctrine of pre- destination fell, of course, so soon as man came to be regarded as other than a volitionless statue. This syn- ergistic theory of Melanethon's was admitted into the Leipsic Interim (q. v.) in the words "(iod does not op- erate on man as on a block, but draws him in such a way that his will co-operates." It was also advocated in a polemical adilress by Johann Pfeffinger, professor and pastor at Leipsic (1555), against whom Amsdorff ( q. v.) contended, in 1558, that " it is presumptuous to hold that man could, in the exercise of his natural pow- ers, ])repare and tit himself to receive grace." Pfeffing- er had said, however, that the Holy Spirit must first arouse the will, after which the latter is required to do its part in conversion. From this personal stage the (|uestion was lifted into the schools by Flacius (q. v.). He denied all participation of the will in the work of conversion, because it is dead to all good, wanting in all powers for good, and inclined to evil constantly. tJod, therefore, is the sole agent in conversion, and man is not only passive, but also unwilling. To the defence of such postulates Flacius devoted two days in a dis- putation at Jena, which latter imiversity now became tlie centre of strict Lutheranism as against Wittenberg, where the s])irit of ^lelancthon ruled. The next meas- ure of this Lutheran champion was the publication of the Wcimiir h'ook of Confutations, which committed the duke of Saxony to the defence c)f orthodoxy, and served, at the same time, to refute all the errors of the time. It likewise occasioned the overthrow of Strigel (q. v.), who had been forced to aid in making a first draft of the book, but was unwilling to admit into it any of the improvements suggested by F'lacius, and wrote against it in the form in which it was given to the worlil. He was seized and imprisoned on Easter- day, 155!), but was soon afterwarils liberated in defer- ence to the censure with which ixiblic ojiinion every- where visited that act of violence; ami a colloquy was ordered to be held at Weimar in August, 15G0, with a view to settling the dispute. On this occasion Flacius inconsiderately asserted that original sin is not an ac- cident, but part of the substance of man, and obstinate- ly refused to retract the statement. The favor of the court now beg:ni to wane, anil in exactly the same de- gree did the I'laciauist divines rage against all who re-
fused to sustain their opinions. Punishment naturally followed, and reached its culmination in the dismissal from olKce of Flacius and his clique, Dec. 10, 1561. Strigel, on the other hand, was iiuiuced to draw up a Declaration of his views, and was thereupon reinstated, which event was followed by an exi)lanatory Superdec- laration. from the hand of superintendent Stiissel, de- signed to conciliate the opposite party ((.'ot/iui-iws iSVoes- .iclii, in Salig, iii, 891). Strigel, however, refused to ac- cept the interpretation of his views given by Stossel, and took refuge ''from the macliinations of false breth- ren" in Leipsic. The Lutherans who rejected Stossel's compromise were banished, to the number of forty. The accession of John William to the throne of ducal Saxony (15(37) restored the t'laciaiiists, Flacius himself excepted, to jjower; a futile colloquy was held for the purpose of giving peace to the Church at Altenburg, Oct. 21, 1568; and the duke was eventually constrained to order the forming of the Coj-pus iJoctriiuE Thurin- yicum (Jena, 1571) with a view to the protection of as- sailed orthodoxy. The Formula of Concord gave the finishing stroke to the conflict, and settled it substan- tially in harmony with the Flacian view. See Salig, HiM. d. A ugxh. Conf. i, 648; Walch, Religionsstieitigkeiten innerhalb d. luth. Kiixhe, i, 60; iv, 86; Planck, Gesch.d. prot. Lehrbegrijfs, iv, 553 ; Schllisselberg, Catalogi Hce- ref.v; (ialle, M e la net ho7i, p. 32G; Thomasius, Bekenntniss d. luth. Kirche, etc., p. 119; Dollinger, Reformation, iii, 437; Schmid, in Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1849, p. 13; ! Preger, M. Flacius Illyi-icus, etc., ii, 104-227. — Uerzog, Real-Enojliop. s. v.