M10: Melanchthon: gentle or angry nature?; Dr. Green's false judgment

Angry nature?           Gentle nature?

 

       This continues from Part 9 (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 finishes Baumgärtner's stirring letter. Then he reveals the truth about the comparative natures between Melanchthon and Luther, and states "the opposite is the truth" about what is superficially reported by modern historians. Melanchthon… I never knew this side of you before. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 332-335 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 10 of 28  - - - - - - -

 

For at this imperial Diet no man to this day has done more harm to the Gospel than Philip. He has also fallen into such presumptuousness that he not only does not want to hear anyone else talk and counsel about it, but also goes out with clumsy cursing and scolding, so that he frightens everyone and dampens them with his assessment and authority. **) I do not like to write such things (LuW 335) about him, because he has been so great up to now, so I let it stay and nevertheless have often conceded a lot to him against my conscience.” (op. cit. p. 396) 

——————        

 

**) Melanchthon himself confesses that he is irascible. He writes to Veit Dietrich in 1540: “I am often deeply indignant, because you know that I am hot-tempered (όςνχολον).” (C. R. III, 1172) Further on the same in 1541: “Meo more, hoc est, iracundius.” [“In my own way, that is, more passionate”] (Corp. R. IV, 435) In the same year, in the preface to the history of the Regensburg Colloquium, he confesses: “I am by nature less combative (pugnax) than necessary. (p. 671) Those who know Luther and Melanchthon only superficially usually get the idea of these two persons that the former was of an angry nature, the latter of a gentle nature. But the opposite is the truth. [Matthäus] Ratzeberger tells: 

“It was also the custom of Mr. Philip, in disputationibus publicis and privatis, that he was soon indignant when someone opposed him with a weak or minor argument; for he was a sharp dialectic and was used to sharp arguments, and went through them more than to minor ones; therefore, when he heard something weak or feeble put forward in disputatione, he rejected such feeble argument that he often, ex impatientia, would not listen to the opponent, but told him to keep silent and give space to another. Luther in disputationibus vet publicis vel privatis, [discussions, whether public or private] on the other hand, had a much more magis sedatum morem disputandi, [a more sedate manner of discussion] [this was the same with Walther] how serious he was otherwise in his scriptis. For while someone might make a weak, lazy or weak argument, Dr. Luther did not use it as soon as Philip, but always assumed the same thing himself, and often gave it a better ornament, shape, and prestige, which the opponent had often not thought of himself; and when such things happened, he asked to excess whether this was not Mr. Opponent's real opinion; if the opponent said yes, then he first of all made the argument that everyone was amazed by it, and had much to learn from it. So Philip was not of good mind; for as moderatus and placidus as he otherwise was in his Scriptis, so easily he allowed himself to be shaken and indignant in disputationibus publicis and privatis; as a result, some, so deterred by natural blindness, per illam vehementiam Philippi, [by that vehemence of Philip] had to remain silent.” (Ratzeberger's handwritten history of Luther and his time. Published by Neudecker. Jena 1850. p.100) 

[Valentin] Löscher says of these letters: “They depict Philip's inconstancy and great fearfulness at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg and, though it may be a bit harsh, it is the truth.” (p. 390) How inclined Melanchthon was to give in to enemies and friends, often with inner reluctance to the point of fierce anger, how inclined he was to use ambiguous words and confessional formulas to achieve external unity, as the following reports may prove. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 11  - - - - - - - - - -

Valentin Löscher is generally considered to be irenic and would not overstate Philip Melanchthon's nature. So how does LC-MS theologian Dr. Lowell Green, in his defense of Melanchthon's legacy, compare him with Martin Luther?  In his 1980 book How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel, he stated (p. 253 [p. 217 in “1517.” edition of 2021]):

“Melanchthon did not always find it easy to live and work under the shadow of the famous reformer. Luther had a strong personality and especially in later years tended to be domineering and polemical. More than once Melanchthon sighed about his ‘bondage’. Melanchthon also had his flaws. He was not always forthright and tended to conceal matters from Luther to avoid possible controversies.”

"Domineering"? Dr. Green uses a pejorative term against Luther, a term "intended to disparage or belittle". And Green has no criticism of Melanchthon's charge of "bondage" against Luther, labeling this as a "flaw" in Martin Luther. Either way, Green's judgment is the opposite of Löscher's, Walther's and Bente's (and many others of the time). And Walther and Bente do not hide the identity of who Melanchthon wrote this letter to, this letter accusing Luther of "bondage". Who did Melanchthon write this letter to? Find out in the next Part 11.