In this reply [to the evangelical Italians or Venetians], however, Luther had not only expressed his deep indignation at the disaster which the Swiss had also instigated in Italy, but at the same time promised to let a new writing go out against them. Melanchthon read the letter with horror and wrote about it to Veit Dietrich under October 25, 1543:
“As for Italian affairs, what I feared has happened. I knew well that Luther would write rougher than he thinks (!). For why was it necessary to also admit transubstantiation? [Luther hardly admits transubstantiation!] **) … But since Luther's answers are widely disseminated, that opinion, if brought to the Swiss, will provoke new disputes.” (C. R. III, 208)
——————
**) Luther had only written: “We reject the useless and sophistical disputation of transubstantiation by giving nothing for it if anyone else believes it or not.” (de Wette V, 568. [StL 21, 2876]) It is very much to be feared that Melanchthon, for the sake of his dear Swiss friends, was more offended by the clear explanation of the true doctrine of the presence of Christ in Holy Communion, which is found in Luther's letter, than by the fact that Luther attaches so little importance to whether one believes transubstantiation or not. Melanchthon knew how dismissively and mockingly Luther otherwise spoke about this superstition [of transubstantiation]. [Melanchthon actually did not understand Luther’s argument on transubstantiation!]
In addition to the news coming to Luther from Italy, there was also the fact that at the beginning of the following year in Zurich the Zwingli's Works were newly published and “reaffirmed all his opinions” (Guericke), and that the rumor was spread that Luther had given way in the doctrine of the sacraments, which, as Luther wrote of Eperies, had reached as far as Hungary. ***)
——————
***) See Luther's letter to the brothers in Eperies [Hungary] V, 643. [StL 21b, 2969]
Thus Luther decided to raise his voice once again against the Zurich people. Melanchthon experienced this with horror, not only because his hope of complete union with the Swiss dwindled with it, but also because he heard at the same time that in the projected writing he too would be attacked by name. The latter was now admittedly an error, for when Luther said to the Italians and Hungarians that he would write once more against the Sacramentarians, Luther, reassured by Melanchthon's beautiful words, gave him [Melanchthon] the testimony that he was right in the point about the sacrament.
But Melanchthon (page 363) obviously had an evil conscience; for in fact his faith was now worse off than Luther suspected. Already on September 6, 1543, he had written to Veit Dietrich:
“You know that in Italy and France a quarrel has broken out over the Lord's Supper, and that this discord, as in Germany, is holding up the course of the Gospel. And in France the heads invoke the authority of Luther as an excuse for their cruelty. I wish that this were not confirmed by you. For there is no doubt that antiquity has spoken about this matter much differently than modern times. [i.e. M. takes “antiquity” or Church Fathers over Holy Scripture.] [Gregory of] Nazianzus speaks quite simply of images (αντιτυποις) of the body and blood of Christ. [This demonstrates M.’s real error, not about transubstantiation. See above.] And I could cite more similar testimonies. Or do you think that I hear without much pain that ours [Luther] sometimes speaks no less of the Rhenish than of the Turks? I am sorry that you too speak somewhat harshly at times. I would therefore like you to speak from time to time of the whole thing as a scientifically educated man (ut hominem doctum). I touched on this matter in the booklet written in Bonn against the Cologne Sycophants, and I ask you to read it in the context of our friendship. For I wanted to say something about the use of the Sacraments and to rebuke the ideas of the common people, which fake almost magical enclosures of Christ. However, I do not make the Lord's Supper a profane thing. I say that in use Christ makes us his members and is effective.” (C. R. V., 176)
.jpg "Wolfgang Musculus")
Melanchthon also wrote to the opponent of Luther's doctrine of Holy Communion, Eutychius [Wolfgang] Musculus in Augsburg, on August 12, 1544:
“Now our Pericles [see Part 7] is stirring up new inner wars. He thunders against those who talk about the symbols of the body and blood of Christ differently than he himself talks, and at times attacks me too. Therefore I do not know how it will be with me. Perhaps I will have to emigrate at this age.” (C. R. V., 464)
"Because such points in Philip Melanchthon's writings do not agree with Dr. Luther's doctrine, as he has led and argued from and according to God's Word, therefore they cannot be considered a standard, but should be subjected to the specified standard and read with such a judgment as in the Formula of Concord the disputed articles are explained, and should not be drawn, used, or led against it."
 |
| Philippist historians |
“Melanchthon may [may not?] have generally given the church fathers more place and space in his writings than Luther did, but such a judgment [not a fact?] dare not obscure the fact that the former asserted the principle of biblical authority alone as warmly as the latter [As if Walther and Bente "obscured" Melanchthon's earlier orthodoxy! As if Melanchthon did not fall away from his earlier position!] and that Luther used patristic evidence extensively, in accord with the way of thinking theologically he had learned as a student.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.