M15: Cordatus blows whistle; “‘causa’ must leave”; Walther's Law & Gospel; Gillespie, Riley against UAC?

       This continues from Part 14 (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.” — Walther now reports on the serious charges of Cordatus against Melanchthon.  — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 354-356 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 15 of 28  - - - - - - -

But there is also direct evidence that Luther did not bear and tolerate any erroneous belief in the divine teaching of Melanchthon. 

When Caspar Cruciger was to give lectures on the Gospel of St. John in 1536, he asked for the material of Melanchthon. The latter also granted Cruciger his request, and gave him, among other things, the remark: 

“Only Christ is the causa propter quem [the cause for which]; nevertheless, it is true that men must do something, that we must repent and prepare our conscience through the Word, so that we may have faith. Thus our repentance and our efforts are the causae sine quibus [“causes without which”] of justification.” 

 

By God's dispensation, the faithful student of Luther [Conrad] Cordatus, then pastor in Niemegk, was present at this lecture. The latter was shocked by such (LuW 355) doctrine, which was unheard of among Lutherans, and reproached Cruciger, who told him, among other things, that he had only presented what he had received from Melanchthon. Cordatus then turned to Melanchthon, and when Melanchthon did not satisfy him, he told Luther about the matter. (Corp. Refor. III, 159. ff.) 

Now Melanchthon reports: 

“Yesterday he (Luther) discussed with me exceedingly dearly about these disputes which Cordatus had aroused,” but he confesses not only in the immediately preceding: “I endeavor with all loyalty to preserve the harmony of our academy, and you know that in this way of proceeding I also tend to apply a little art” (p. 383); 

Melanchthon had also already previously, for his justification in this matter from Nuremberg (for he had just traveled at the time of the Cordatus' accusation), addressed a longer letter to Luther, Bugenhagen, and Cruciger, and explained himself very well about the sense in which he had used those expressions. “I ask, therefore,” he writes, “for Christ's sake, to believe that I taught what I taught with good zeal and not with the consciousness of being in conflict with you.” (p.179. f. [StL 21b, 2117]) Ratzeberger writes about this matter among other things the following: 

“When Dr. Cruciger ex praescripto Philippi [from the prescription of Philip] dictates to his auditors the whole Lectionem de verbo ad verbum publice in schola [“a word-for-word lesson in public at school”], a pious godly pastor Conradus Cordatus, an Austrian, who had recently come to Wittenberg to studium verae religionis christianae [”for the study of the true Christian religion”], became suspicious of this formula causa sine qua non, [“a cause without which it is not”], which was understood by the students. For he had previously heard the same of Philip in privata lectione with foreigners, and allowed himself to be suspicious, bona opera requiri ad salutem tanquam causam sine qua non, [”good works are required for salvation as a cause without which it is not”], and therefore conferred with a number of students on it, until it was finally brought to Dr. Luther. 

Dr. Luther was moved hard by this, and therefore spoke hard words to Dr. Cruciger. Dr. Crnciger apologized, because this Dictata in schola [“taught in school”] would not be his, but Philip’s, as he proved this with the right Autographo of Philip. Luther then went into the matter and made a publicam disputationem, exploding and condemning the opinion tanquam erroneam et falsam [as erroneous and false] with public testimoniis scripturae. [testimony of scripture] This would secretly cause Philip great pain, and creates a secret suspicion of Luther, when he did not want to oppress him and not suffer beside him, but allowed himself to be incited against him, and therefore also became above measure incited against Cordatus; everything from this delusion, as if Cordatus had caused him such a reduction in Luther's stature, therefore he called him pro cordato quadratum, [instead of a square heart], but secretly, and at least did not let his displeasure against Luther be noticed at all, but could even hide it with him in a manner of his own.” (Handwritten history etc. pp. 82-84) 

Löscher reports from a document available to him in the manuscript: "Schütz- und Verantwortung der (LuW 356) Formula Concordiae" of the year 1585 the news: “Luther has publicly said that the ‘causa’ must leave the Locis.” (Unschuld. Nachrr. 1706. p. 367) *) 

—————— 

*) Dr. Carl Schmidt also reports in his writing: "Ph. Melanchthon. Elberfeld. 1861": "He gave up the formula that good works are the conditio sine qua non of justification; the statement contained in the Loci of 1535 that works are necessary to eternal life, inasmuch as they must necessarily follow reconciliation, he replaced in the 1538 edition with this: ‘the new spiritual life is necessary’; later he was content even to say: ‘obedience, that is, the righteousness of conscience is necessary’. (op. cit. p. 333) 

[Gottfried] Thomasius also writes: “By his (Melanchthon's) prudent explanation and retraction the already rising storm was still appeased. Melanchthon gave up those expressions about which Luther also expressed his disapproval.” (Das Bekenntniß etc. Nuremberg. 1848. p. 100) 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 16  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther draws on a wealth of testimonies, including available private letters, to report on this critical matter. Bente does the same in his history, search "Cordatus". In Walther's well-known Law & Gospel book (CPH 2010), he stated of Cordatus (p. 58): 

“A simple pastor such as Cordatus, a very close friend of Luther’s, unquestionably distinguished Law and Gospel a thousand times better than Melanchthon, even though the latter was called ‘Teacher of All Germany.’”

The irony of this is that the highly touted German theologian from Erlangen Prof. Werner Elert, a mentor of Dr. Lowell Green, praised this book of Walther! And Dr. Green himself (p. 208) even calls Walther's book a "classical presentation." Both, along with Dr. Robert Kolb, are what Robert Baker says is "not an indication of a supposed general agreement between Walther and the advocate’s theological system." — But when one reads the modern histories from the LCMS on this, one is met with long narratives that avoid the documentation and testimonies that Walther brings out. So much for their praise of Walther. — In the next Part 16…

- - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Pastors Gillespie & Riley:   - - - - - - - -

      We last met with podcasting LC-MS Pastors Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley ("Banned Books") in Part 8 regarding a "pretty strong bent" in historical writings. After they accused Bente of this charge, they went on to specify what Bente's "bias" is: 

• Riley (1:02:08): And so like that, you've mentioned Bente, Bente is he, he doesn't, he's not a big fan of Philip Melanchthon <laugh>.
• Gillespie (1:02:17): <hearty laughing> That's an understatement. <laughing by both>
• Riley (1:02:18): And thus you, if you read Bente, his Introduction then to the Book of Concord, you might [only might?] get the impression that Melanchthon was a bumbling idiot who derailed the Reformation and ruined everything. [i.e. Rosenbladt's "black hat" charge, Part 5] Um, which isn't true entirely. [Not entirely? How “not entirely”?] He just wasn't Luther. <laugh> [Oh?]
• Gillespie (1:02:34):  I mean, Bente is caught up in the whole Unaltered Augsburg Confession controversy. 
• Riley (1:02:39): Right. And thus to my point, every generation is embroiled in its battles and thus how it does history and how it confesses its doctrine will be filtered through that particular time and that particular debate and that particular context. [See Part 8]

There is no denying that Bente and Walther may seem too harsh against Melanchthon (see e.g. Bente p. 107 or here)  but only if one does not read, or disregards, their thorough documentation. [See Cordatus's charge above and Ratzeberger's report above (and Part 6), Baumgartner’s sharp judgment (Part 9), also Chemnitz & Hutter in Excursus 1 & 2, etc.] 

Unaltered Augsburg Confession… or not?

      But the general critical remarks against Bente pale in comparison to Pastor Gillespie's charge that Bente got "caught up in the whole Unaltered Augsburg Confession controversy."  Anyone who knows anything of the history of the Lutheran Church has heard of this matter.  In earlier times one would occasionally see the acronym "UAC" in the name of a Lutheran church on their outdoor signage in front of the church building. That meant they identified with those who got "caught up" in distinguishing themselves as true Lutherans who did not subscribe to the ambiguous language of the Altered Augsburg Confession or "Variata". Even the LC-MS's own "Christian Cyclopedia" says "P. Melanchthon tried to unite Lutherans and Reformed on basis of an altered AC".  Maybe Pastor Gillespie and "Banned Books" don't want to get "caught up" with the UAC and would consider uniting with the Reformed?  — It is a great shame how Arand, Kolb, and Nestingen, in their modernist History, p. 174, attempt to cover up the net result of Melanchthon and the so-called "right, the obligation, to sharpen the argu­ment of their 'mission statement.'” Even they had to admit (p. 175) that this "sharpening" opened the door to Calvinism.

      No! "Banned Books"' slurs against Bente reveal just how far today's LC-MS seminaries have strayed from true Lutheranism.  Paul McCain, in Part 9, masterfully gives the opposite informed judgment of Bente's history, and demonstrates what true Lutheranism is. Thank God for those true Lutherans in the 16th century who got "caught up" and took a stand for the Unaltered Augsburg Confession!