Incidentally, I think that ours [Luther] thinks much more appropriately than he sometimes speaks when he gets upset.” (p. 497)
But, as unfounded as the fears cherished by them proved to be, as I have said, they show, first, how Melanchthon and his friend Cruciger knew that Luther himself would not spare [i.e. "carry" or "tolerate"] them even publicly if it became apparent to him that they were devoted to false doctrine; and, secondly, that both of them, if they did not merely clash with Luther's strong expressions, but fell to the counter-doctrine in their hearts and to their confidants, had so far only reassured Luther by ambiguous talk; which latter [fell to the counter-doctrine in their hearts], unfortunately, seems to be more likely to be accepted than the former. By the way, Melanchthon mentions in a letter of October 10 a conversation he had with Luther about the matter with the following words:
“I have told Luther that I have always defended the synecdoche, that when bread and wine are taken, Christ is truly present and makes us His members, and that outside of use no external actions (ritus) have the nature of a sacrament. I consider that he has been satisfied thereby.” (p. 498. f.)
God alone knows whether this was all that Melanchthon conceded to Luther at that time. This much is certain, however, that Luther had no objection to the term synecdoche as a grammatical figure, **) and that he had appropriated the important axiom first set up by Melanchthon: Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum [”Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”], is known. ***)
——————
**) See Luther's Great Confession. Tom. Hal. XX, 1296 § 354 [StL 20, 1034]. Writing Against the Heavenly Prophets. p. 341. f. [StL 20, 257]
***) See Tom. Hal. XX, 2012. f. [StL 20, 1608], XXI, 1561, 1588. f. [StL 21a, ?] As is well known, the Melanchthonian Axiom is also referred to by the Formula of Concord. See Müller p. 665. [Triglotta, 1001; F. C., S.D., VII, 85]
Thus the unsuspecting Luther wrote as late as November 12, 1544, in his second letter to the Italians: "If you have heard that Philip or Luther has consented to their (the sacramentarians’) frenzy, for God's sake do not believe it.” (Luther's Letters, de Wette. V, 697 [StL 17, 2174])
.jpg "Hermann von Wied (Wikipedia)")
But only too soon did Luther receive cause for new suspicion. In 1543, Melanchthon had worked out the Cologne Reformation draft with Bucer in Bonn on behalf of Elector Hermann von Wied. As already mentioned, Melanchthon had not worked on the part dealing with Holy Communion, (LuW 366) but he had completely approved of it to Luther even before he had read the draft himself. Luther wrote about it to Amsdorf on June 23, 1544:
“I have neither seen nor read the Cologne Reformation, although I hear that it is praised. I have asked Master Philip, who says it is of such a nature that the right mind and use of the Word and the Sacraments are taught in all churches, with the elimination of all superstition.” (p. 670) [StL 21b, 3003]
Unfortunately, the matter was quite different. About the end of November, Luther finally received the draft. And now he wrote to the Chancellor Brück:
“I like the bishop's (Amsdorf) articles, especially those about the Lord's Supper; for there is power there; and send them again with this, too. *) …
——————
*) Amsdorf had sent the draft with his criticism to the Elector of Saxony, who sent both to Luther.
However, I was moved by the articles and quickly fell into the book (the [Cologne] Reformation draft) and the sacraments; for there the shoe presses me hard, and I find that nothing pleases me there. For a long time there is much talk about the benefit, fruit and honor of the sacrament; but of the substance it mumbles that one should not hear what he thinks of it in all respects, as the enthusiasts do and, as the bishop (Amsdorf) indicates, does not say one word against the enthusiasts, in which it is nevertheless necessary to act [i.e. there is no “Wehre”]; the other would probably be found with less effort and speech. But nowhere does it want to find out whether the right body and blood was received orally, nor does it report anything of this, since he tells the Anabaptists what they do, when the enthusiasts have so much more evil articles than the Anabaptists. In summary, the book is not only tolerable for the enthusiasts, but also comforting; rather for their teaching than for ours. Therefore I am sick of it and am exceedingly unhappy with it. If I am to read it completely, my gracious lord must give me room to read it until my dislike settles; otherwise I may not look at it well. And even without that, as the bishop shows, everything is too long and too big a tale, that I well feel here the rattle-mouth, Bucer.” (de Wette. V, 708. F. [StL 21b, 3008; WABr 10, 609, #4011])
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.