M11: M.'s notorious letter; Green avoids recipient's name (Carlowitz)

       This continues from Part 10 (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.” — The identity of the recipient of Melanchthon's notorious letter was not hidden by Walther, unlike that of modern LC-MS historians. — This portion comes from LuW, 22, pp. 334-336 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 11 of 28  - - - - - - -

Even after Luther's death, in 1548, in that well-known letter to the Electoral Councilor Christoph von Carlowitz [C. R. 6, 879 f.; see Bente p. 106; see here for another spin on Melanchthon], he poured out his heart about how he stood in his inner being in this respect. *)  The Augsburg Interim [a disastrous compromise with Catholics], which had been set up by order of the Emperor, had appeared. Melanchthon had first written against it immediately and thereby incurred the wrath of the emperor. [see here] Now that Carlowitz (a chief opponent of the old expelled Elector [John Frederick]) had called upon Melanchthon to be more lenient, the latter replied, among other things, as follows: 

“I will open up to you completely. … First of all, I assure you that the Most Serene Prince (Moritz) [or Maurice] may determine, according to his and his Council's opinion, what may seem above all to be beneficial to both him and the State. If the prince has decided, then I will, even if I cannot approve it, not act rebelliously in any way, but will either remain silent or bear whatever may happen. **) 

——————

*) Admittedly, in this article of ours we are not dealing with the Melanchthon of the first period, nor with the time after Luther's death, which the honored reader must not overlook, but with the Melanchthon becoming suspicious until Luther's death; his letter to Carlowitz alone, although from 1548, provides information about Melanchthon's position on Luther in that middle period, but may therefore be listed as a witness for what we have to prove. 

**) Löscher makes the following comment on this: “This tastes of indifferentism and skepticism, which does little for the confessors of truth. One must not say: ‘I will either keep silent’; one must rather say: ‘I will not keep silent about Christ and His Gospel’. (Unschuld. Nachrr. 1730. p. 383) 

I have also in the past borne an almost shameful servitude [to Luther; see Bente p. 106; Green (1980), p. 253, Green-1517, p. 217], since Luther often served his disposition, in which there was no small quarrelsomeness, more than either his position (personae) or the general good. And I know that at all times, as the inconveniences of bad weather, so any errors in government must be humbly borne (LuW 336) and overlooked with the expenditure of some art (modeste et arte).  But you say that not only silence but also recommendation (of the Interim) is demanded of me. I have no doubt that you, as a wise man, are able both to see through the characters of men and to heal deeply their minds and inclinations. I am not quarrelsome by nature (γιλόνειχος) and love, if anyone, the socialization of men. Nor did I arouse these disputes which have disrupted the State, but entered into those which had already been aroused, *) and since they were many and involved, I began to consider them out of a certain simple urge to explore the truth, especially since many learned and wise men applauded them at first. And although the author (Luther) had added some harsher matters in the beginning, I felt that I should not be allowed to reject the other true and necessary things. By taking this out and holding on to it, I have little by little either rejected or softened some of the distasteful (absurdas) opinions. **) … I believe that the Emperor's will is good, and I see that irrelevant (mediocres) conditions are presented. I wish, however, that a few (!) things (!) would be mitigated. I freely and willingly concede many things about which others have argued so vehemently.” (Corpus Reform. VI, 880-82) 

In 1535, returning from a meeting with Bucer in Cassel, where he had defended Luther's doctrine of the Holy Supper, he was able to write to Camerarius: "Do not demand of me now to speak my mind to you, for I was the messenger of a stranger, though I will not conceal what I believe when I have heard what our own people say. (II, 822) 

——————

*) Melanchthon thus hereby absolves himself of having, together with Luther, through the work of the Reformation, caused the now highly and ever more blazing fire of conflict between the friends [i.e. Evangelicals] and enemies [Papists] of truth! In his fearfulness and false love of peace he did not think of what John writes 2 John 8 [LED]. 

**) Here Löscher remarks: "How Philip here, and elsewhere in these letters, tried to put Luther in a spiteful light and to ascribe 'distasteful' opinions to them, and how he even often spoke so coldly of the work of the Reformation against his own and public testimony, which otherwise was given in all his writings, the theologians in Wittenberg show with great seriousness in the Refutation of the Peucerian History p. 252 ff.” (op. cit. p. 384) 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 12  - - - - - - - - - -

Modern historians will generally report Melanchthon's opposition to the notorious Augsburg Interim.  What they do not report is that Melanchthon would "remain silent" if the opposition continued to pressure for it.  So this perceived strength of Melanchthon had its limits.

      In Part 10, we quoted Dr. Lowell C. Green's judgment of Melanchthon's accusation against Luther, that he had been in "bondage" under him.  He reveals only in a footnote the bare information on the source of this, but he does not give the name of the letter's recipient. Walther, however, does give the pertinent details, that it was in a letter to Carlowitz, a known opponent to the Evangelical cause. Bente additionally notes the date of the letter as April 28, 1548, a time of severe pressure for the Evangelicals as the Emperor and the Catholic party were bearing down on them.  These facts severely damage Dr. Green's attempts to raise the opinions of Philip Melanchthon's legacy.

      Now the scholars in Dr. Robert Kolb's world, including his German associate author Dr. Irene Dingel, may try to defend against the above notorious behavior of Melanchthon by saying that the important matter is the doctrine, not matters about the "nature" of the participants.  If so, I would say, glad you mentioned it!… for the doctrine is indeed the important matter. Let's see how they fare with the doctrine of sola fide in the next Part 12.