On October 13, 1537, when a day had already been set on which Melanchthon was to be reproached for suspecting that he held false doctrines, he wrote to the same Dietrich:
“Today I have collected a small supply for my defense. I will tell you why I thought I had to explain some things in the dogmas more precisely in order to eliminate ambiguities and improper ways of speaking (άχυρολογίας), which have many dangers. I will show which dark parts (LuW 328) have created such improper ways of speaking; I will also say why I thought I had to moderate some of them. I will add the goals I have set myself, not to be the author of a new sect, or to appear to be fighting a mirror-image against Luther, but to achieve these two things: that there might be a Christian doctrine that was actually and simply presented for the benefit of youth, and that I might promote the study of other sciences. . I will also apologize that my views have been more moderate in public deliberations. For I have never tyrannically defended my opinion, but have rather followed what the princes have decided by common council, as in an aristocracy.… Know, then, that I am ready to answer with full equanimity. For perhaps an open discussion will be the best way to lift the whole offense.” (op. cit. p. 429)
When in the year before Cordatus had attacked Melanchthon on account of the latter's naming of good works as the causa sine qua non, Melanchthon declared in a letter [of Nov. 1, 1536] addressed from Nuremberg to Luther, Jonas and Cruciger together:
“I have never wanted to teach anything else, especially with regard to this point of contention, nor have I taught anything other than what you teach together.… My writings are here. Nor do I flee your judgment, not even [Nicholas] Amsdorf's. Nor have I ever thought of anything other than to explain as accurately as possible what your doctrines teach, because I knew that many of such important things have perverse opinions. Young people also need a suitable way of teaching doctrines, sometimes in dialectical words.… I also ask you for Christ's sake to make sure that I 'taught' what I taught with good zeal and not in the knowledge (animo) of disagreement with you. I have never wished to separate my opinion from your own; rather, when I am incriminated by the suspicions and slander of certain men, and alienation of minds is to be feared, I would rather go away somewhere.… I do not presume to presume anything and I have nothing new to publish but my opinion. I collected yours and explained it as simply as I could." (op. cit. p. 180 [StL 21b, 2117])
He also wrote to Camerarius in the same year concerning this dispute:
“They have circulated letters” (of Cordatus) “in which it was written that I would not return because I disagree with Luther and the others. This idle talk of the people is ridiculous to me; but there are those here who have stirred up these fables, who thereby sufficiently place their folly or the weakness of their will on display. Nothing is reproached to me but that I am said of myself that I praise good works too much. This is because, by actually and precisely declaring and methodically presenting these points of contention, I am talking about some things less offensively (minus horride) than they do.” (p. 193)
Still on October 21, 1545, he writes (LuW 329) to Buchholzer:
“I do not know where the so great hatred against me in some old friends comes from, since they themselves know that no new dogma of mine has been brought forth and that in some matters the true and actual explanation has been sought with considerable diligence.” ([CR 7,] p. 872)
In addition to Melanchthon's repeated assurances that he was in agreement with Luther in his doctrines, there is now also the fact that much of what Melanchthon said and wrote was questionable, and that it remained completely unknown to Luther. That Melanchthon, for example, had written an "Apologia de conciliatione", defense of a compromise, Luther learned with astonishment only through a letter from Venice [WABr 10, 201-206, text here; English translation here.]. (Luther's Letters, de Wette. V, 568 [StL 21b, 2807; Luther’s answer: StL 21b 2876-2877]) [Matthäius] Ratzeberger also writes:
“After this Colloquio (1536) and departures from Wittenberg, not only Bucer, but also the other theologians from Upper Austria, Switzerland and Zurich would write a lot to Philip, likewise Philip now and then to the Zurich theologians, since Heinricus Bullinger had only recently succeeded in Zwinglio caeso [beat Zwingli]. Luther did not know the slightest thing about this secret writing back and forth, and it remained hidden for a long time that Luther did not learn anything about it.” (Ratzeberger's handwritten history of Luther and his time, edited by Neudecker. Jena 1850, p. 85)
Ratzeberger tells further below,
“So now Philip, as reported, could hide his dissensum a doctrina Lutheri de sacrosancta coena [dissent from Luther's doctrine of the sacrosanct Lord’s Supper], so that he didn't let it be heard or noted in the slightest, and almost nobody among the Studiosis [students] could notice it, except only his secret and trusted friends, as Vitus Winshemius, Mag. Marcellus et pauci alii [and a few others], and so his secret remained affectus Luthero adhuc vivente [while Luther still lived] or more remained hidden and hushed up.” (p. 95)
"[Bente's] work covers a goodly deal of Melanchthon history and theology, but poorly.
"There's a very good new historical introduction to the Book of Concord done by, Robert Kolb, Jim Nestingen, and Charles Arand [The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of The Book of Concord, Fortress, 2012], which I would highly recommend that people use instead of Bente."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.