THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
(giving text and translation of innumerable documents — a monumental work); A. J. Brown, The New Era.in the Philippines, New York, 1903; A. de Morga, Hist, of the Philippine Islands, 2 vols., Cleveland, 1907; D. B. Barrows, History of Philippines, New York, 1908. For the religious side consult: A. Coleman, The Friars in the Philippines, Boston, 1809; J. T. Medina, El Tribunal de la Inquisicibn en las Islas Filipinos, Santiago, 1899; F. Colin, Labor Evangelica, Ministeros de los Obreros de la CompaiHa de Jesus . . en las Islas Filipinos, 3 vols., Barcelona, 1900- 1902; E. Zamora, Las Corporaciones religiosas en Filipinos, Yalladolid, 1901. For accounts of evangelical missionary work consult : H. O. Dwight, The Blue Book of Missions, pp. 68-69, New York, 1907; and the annual reports of the missionary societies at work there.
PHILIPPISTS.
Before Luther's Death (§ 1). Opposition to Melanchthon (§ 2). Open Conflict (§ 3). Lutheran Strictures (§ 4). Downfall of the Philippists (§ 5). Estimate of Philippism (§ 6).
Philippists was the designation usually applied in the latter half of the sixteenth century to the followers of Philipp Melanchthon (q.v.). It probably originated among the opposite or Flacian party (see Flacius, Matthias), and
i. Before was applied at first to the theologians
Luther's of the universities of Wittenberg and Death. Leipsic, who were all adherents of Melanchthon's distinctive views, especially those in which he approximated to Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of free will and the value of good works, and to the Swiss Reformers' on the Lord's Supper. Somewhat later it was used in Saxony to designate a distinct party organized by Melanchthon's son-in-law Caspar Peucer (q.v.), with George Cracovius, Johann Stossel (q.v.), and others, to work for a union of all the Protestant forces, as a means to which end they attempted to break down by this attitude the barriers which separated Lutherans and Calvinists. Melanchthon had won, by his eminent abilities as a teacher and his clear, scholastic formulation of doctrine, a large number of disciples among whom were included some of the most zealous Lutherans, such as Matthias Flacius and Tileman Hesshusen (qq.v.), afterward to be numbered among the vehement opponents of Philippism; both of whom formally and materially received the forms of doctrine shaped by Melanchthon. As long as Luther lived, the conflict with external foes and the work of building up the Evangelical Church so absorbed the Reformers that the int' nal differences which had already begun to show themselves were kept in the background.
But Luther was no sooner dead than the internal as well as the external peace of the Lutheran Church declined. It was a misfortune not only for Melanchthon, but for the whole body that he, who had formerly stood as a teacher by the side
2. Opposi- of Luther, the real leader, was now tion to forced suddenly into the position of
Melanch- head not only of the University of thon. Wittenberg but of the entire Evangelical Church of Germany. There was among certain of Luther's associates, notably Nikolaus von Amsdorf (q.v.), a disinclination to accept his leadership. When in the negotiations set on foot with reference to the Augsburg Interim
(see Interim) by the Elector Maurice in 1548 he showed himself increasingly ready to yield and make concessions, he ruined his position with a large part of the Evangelical theologians for all time; and an opposition party was formed, in which the leadership was at once assumed by Flacius in view of his learning, controversial ability, and inflexible firmness. Melanchthon, on the other hand, with his faithful followers (Camerarius, Major, Menius, Pfeflinger, Eber, Cruciger, Strigel [qq.v.]), and others saw in the self-styled genuine Lutherans naught but a narrow and contentious class, which, ignoring the inherent teaching of Luther, sought to domineer over the church by letter and name, and in addition to assert its own ambitious self. On the other hand, the Philippists regarded themselves as the faithful guardians of learning over against the alleged " barbarism," and as the mean between the extremes. The genuine Lutherans also claimed to be representatives of the pure doctrine, defenders of orthodoxy, and heirs of the spirit of Luther. Personal, political, and ecclesiastical animosities widened the breach; such as the rivalry between the Ernestine branch of the Saxon house (now extruded from the electoral dignity) and the Albertine branch; the jealousy between the new Ernestine University of Jena and the electoral universities of Wittenberg and Leipsic, in both of which the Philippists had the majority; and the bitter personal antagonism felt at Wittenberg for Flacius, who assailed his former teachers harshly and made all reconciliation impossible.
The actual conflict began with the controversy over the Interim and the question of Adiaphora (see Adiaphora and the Adiaphoristic Controversy) in 1548 and the following years. In the negotiations concerning the Leipsic 3. Open Interim the Wittenberg theologians Conflict, as well as Johann Pfeffinger and the intimate of Melanchthon, George of Anhalt (q.v.), were on the side of Melanchthon, and thus drew upon themselves the violent opposition of the strict Lutherans, under the leadership of Flacius, who now severed his connection with Wittenberg. When the Philippist Georg Major (q.v.) at Wittenberg and Justus Menius (q.v.) at Gotha put forth the proposition that good works were necessary to salvation, or as Menius preferred to say " the new obedience, the new life, is necessary to salvation," they were not only conscious of the danger that the doctrine of justification by faith alone would lead to antinomianism and moral laxity but they manifested a tendency to bring into account the necessary connection of justification and regeneration: namely, that justification as possession of forgiving grace by faith is indeed not conditioned by obedience; but also that the new life is presupposed by obedience and works springing out of the same justification. But neither Major nor Menius was sufficiently firm in his view to stand against the charge of denying the doctrine of justification and going over to the Roman camp, and thus they were driven back to the general proposition of justification by faith alone. The Formula of Concord (q.v.) closed the controversy by avoiding both extremes, but failed to offer a final solution of the ques-