M05: M.'s errors not overlooked; L.'s "guileless, faithful heart"; Rosenbladt's "black hat" charge against Bente

[2023-05-01: added item on Bente quotes]

      This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — In this segment, Walther makes a striking assertion about Luther's "guileless, faithful heart" in relation to what he believed of Melanchthon. Then he gives solid evidence of this.  Now you can read all of this… in English. Check Walther's sources, NSR: No Scholar Required. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 326-7:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 5 of 28  - - - - - - -

We do not deny that, if the same symptoms that appeared in Melanchthon had appeared in another personality, Luther would not only have been filled with grave suspicion against the latter, but would have intervened with greater seriousness.  But it was not the case that Luther overlooked a false doctrine in Melanchthon, which he would have punished and condemned in another, but rather that Luther's guileless, faithful heart could not believe capable his so often tested dear Melanchthon to be so unfaithful to God and man. So Luther was able to write to the pastors in Eperies, Hungary, on April 21, 1544 (before the publication of his “Brief Confession” of the same year): 

“What you write of Matthias Dévay” [DE] (who had been in Wittenberg) "amazes me very much, because he has such a good rumor with us that I myself can hardly believe it, even if you write it immediately” (that he had joined the Sacramentarians). “But be it as it may, he certainly did not receive the Sacramentarian doctrines from us.  Here we are constantly fencing against it, publicly and especially, and there is not the slightest sign or sight of the abomination in our midst, unless the devil has mumbled about it in some reasonable corner. Stand firm, therefore, and be assured that where God does not take away all the wit from me” (Latin: "Nisi me Deus furiosum fieri permittat"), “I will never again have the same opinion as the enemies of the Sacraments, or that such abominations will be heard in the Church entrusted to me. Or if I, God willing, would do otherwise, you may confidently say that I am great or damned. It is the devil who, knowing that I am publicly insurmountable, as so many of my books testify, wants to defile me by secretly whispering serpents as much as he can in corners and mischaracterize the Word of truth under my name.  After so many of my confessions I must therefore, if I want to do so with Marriage, issue a new one. Of Master Philipp I think nothing bad at all” (“De M. Philippus mihi nulla estomnino suspicio”), “not even by any of us. (LuW 327) Because, as I said, Satan must not be bothered by this in public.” (XXI, 1334. f. [StL 21b 2970-2971]) 

Luther places a similar testimony in a letter of November 12 of the same year [1544] towards Alterius in Italy.  He writes to Alterius: 

“So now do not be deceived, I beseech you in the Lord, neither by the Zurichers [Johann Heinrich] Bullinger, [Konrad] Pellican, nor by [Martin] Bucer himself, who is said to have written many things in Latin in the beginning of this sad trade (which I have not seen), but, as I am convinced, has long since come to terms with it. Yes, if you should perhaps hear that Philip, or Luther would have agreed with the raving of those people, do not believe it for God's sake.” (XVII, 2633 [StL 17, 2174]) 

Luther had written to the same Alterius earlier on June 13 [1543]: 

“Bucer stands by Melanchthon in the Cologne Church, which would not suffer and would not tolerate Philip if he (Bucer) was not considered pure (in doctrines). (Luther’s Letters, de Wette. V, 567 [StL 21b, 2875.]) 

It is a fact that Melanchthon himself said that he did not depart from Luther's doctrines in reality, he only softened what he thought were hard and harsh expressions to protect them from misunderstanding. Thus he wrote to Veit Dietrich on June 22, 1537, among other things: 

“However, I try with all diligence to preserve the unity of our academy, and you know that I also use some art in this. Luther does not seem to have a hostile attitude against us. Only yesterday he was discussing with me in the most loving way the points of contention which Quadratus (Cordatus) aroused when I discussed what a tragic spectacle it would be if we fought with each other like the Cadmean brothers themselves.… Otherwise, of course, I very much wish that the articles, in respect of which there seems to be a certain disparity, were clearly and usefully explained. You know that I speak of some things that are less repulsive (minus horride), of predestination, of the assent of the will, of the necessity of our obedience, of mortal sin. I know that of all these things Luther believes the same thing, but unlearned men love certain somewhat exaggerated (φορτιχώτερα) sayings of his, because they do not see where they belong, too much so. I do not want to argue with them either.  May they rejoice in their judgment. But allow me, the peripatetic [follower of Aristotle] and lover of the Middle Road (mediocritatis), to speak less stoically [without emotion] at times.” (Corp. Reform. III, 383) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 6  - - - - - - - - - -

One does not have to take Walther's judgment on these matters for one can read for themselves from Luther and Melanchthon in their own words. Luther did not believe Melanchthon was capable of being unfaithful, because Melanchthon gave him reason to believe this. This is critical in making sense of Luther's attitude toward him. (Prof. Bente also documents Melanchthon's public statements in his Chapter 199.)  Ah, but there will be a bump in the road ahead. — In the next Part 6…

- - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologian, Historian: Dr. Rod Rosenbladt   - - - - - - - -

      Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, Professor (emeritus) of Theology at Concordia University, Irvine, California, said the following during the 1517./"The Thinking Fellows" podcast of May 19, 2017 @ 05:30-06:07 (emphasis in original):

"… he [Melanchthon] made some bad moves under political pressure., <great emphasis> terrible pressure that in case you're not clear about it, Bente's book on the historical background to the Historical Introduction to the Book of Concord. And as, as Lowell Green said one time, (Scott [Keith] and I were both in class) he [Bente] will <with emphasis> look for ways to criticize Melanchthon and he'll bring in <double emphasis> anything to put Melanchthon in a black hat."

"Black Hat"? "Anything"? Rosenbladt does not directly refute Bente's documented points, just as Prof. Marquart pointed out of Dr. Green in his attack (in Part 3). Dr. Rosenbladt only reveals that he is a follower of Dr. Lowell Green who openly criticized both Walther and Bente in their theology and history. But we saw in Parts 3 and 4 how many quotes Walther gives of Melanchthon's orthodoxy, of his good confessions. Bente does the same:

• p. 44: “With all its thoroughness and erudition the Apology [of Melanchthon] is truly edifying.”;
• p. 98: "In a criticism of the Augsburg Interim… Melanchthon declared…" [2023-05-01: added this item]
• p. 175: “originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther’s views on the Lord’s Supper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to the Zwinglians.” Bente takes 2 pages here to document Melanchthon's good testimonies on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

Are these praises of Melanchthon doing "anything" to put a "black hat" on Melanchthon? So Rosenbladt's statement is not true in view of the above examples, for Bente does as Walther does. And as even Rosenbladt admits here, it was Melanchthon who eventually put the "black hat" on himself, not Bente. And Bente is far from the first Lutheran historian to point out how Melanchthon put the "black hat" on himself. — Surely Dr. Rosenbladt would not make a theological "bad move" under "terrible political pressure".