.jpg "Hieronymus Baumgartner (de.wikipedia)")
How necessary it was for Melanchthon, in Augsburg in 1530, that Luther strengthened him over and over again, can be seen from the drastic description that the brave deputy of the city of Nuremberg, Heronymus Baumgärtner, who was present at the private negotiations with the papists, makes of Melanchthon's behavior. He writes under September 13, 1530 from Augsburg to the Nuremberg (LuW 333) Council secretary Lazarus Spengler, among other things, the following:
“God has ordained us, but by grace, that the [Augsburg] Confession is out and once delivered, otherwise our theologians would long ago have confessed otherwise: how they would like to act where they would be followed, even though they are unequal to each other. Philip is more childish, for he has become a child. …
.jpg "Dr. Gregor Brück, (Wikipedia)")
The Elector… has no one of understanding in this matter, except Dr. Brück, who is but few; but he has been brought to the point where he now also deals with worries, because he has no support from anyone. For the other Saxon theologians are not allowed to speak publicly against Philip, for he stretched out his head so much that he said the other day against the Lüneburg Chancellor: ‘He who may say that the next means given are not Christian, lies as a villain.’ To this he was answered: ‘Whoever says the contradiction,’ etc. And besides, one does not cease to denigrate in many ways those who show themselves Christian and brave in this; as the Hessians, who have behaved quite well and honestly in this respect, publicly complain to us; be careful that we will also be treated in the same way. In sum, if we do not soon receive a harsh, ungracious farewell from the Emperor's Majesty, we will not be let go until we are brought into the traps, so that we forfeit God's grace and do not obtain the Emperor's. For the essence has so far steadily granted: as often the princes with each other, so one comes to the Elector ridden, tells him how he means the matter faithfully and well etc.; he has understood this or that from the Emperor, and if one escaped alone in this or that matters etc., the matter could still be helped: immediately Philip is there, makes articles, glosses them etc.. ... In the meantime, this is carried by” (the Brandenburg Chancellor) “Heller and Brenz also to the Margrave; if we are required to do so, and we do not allow ourselves to enjoy the pre-cooked porridge, then it is of an unwillingness, and the theologians run around, saying that we may not suffer peace; as if peace could certainly be obtained by our yielding; (we) only wanted to strike a blow with the Landgrave, whom they then truly disparage miserably in this… It is therefore necessary to call upon God diligently to help the things themselves, for they have indeed come beyond the reason of men. Periit lex a prophetis et sapientia a sapientibus. [“The law of the prophets and the wisdom of the wise have perished.”] The one or other snipe still has a beak to sing in a Christian and constant way, which is why he was often mocked scurrilously by the others; outside of him, we theologians all wanted to be one with adversity. (Unschuld. Nachrr. [Löscher]. 1730. p. 392. ff.)
On September 15th of the same year, the same Baumgärtner again wrote to the Nuremberg Council:
“Therefore I ask you, for God's sake and for the sake of His Word, to do your part and to write to Doctor Martin Luther that he, as the one through whom God first opens His Word to the world, will come running to Philip with power and yet warn the pious princes (LuW 334), but especially his own master [the Elector], towards him and admonish them to perseverance. *)
——————
*) The beloved Baumgärtner probably did not know that Luther had already written the following to Augsburg on August 26 to Spalatin:
“I hear that you have undertaken, though not gladly, a wonderful work, namely to unite the Pope and Luther with each other. But the Pope will not want to, and Luther refuses to do so; take care that you do not spend your efforts in vain. If you have done this against the will of both of you, then I will immediately reconcile Christ and Belial with each other, following your example. I know, however, that you have not been drawn to this vain effort of your own free will, but by chance, or rather by the hooded ghosts of Speier. Christ, who has been your strength up to now, will also now be your wisdom, that those Italian cunning intrigues against you will do nothing. For evil counsel is most evil to the counselor. Greet Master Eisleben, Dr. Brenz, Schnepf and all ours.” (Letters, de Wette. IV, 144 [StL 16, 1406, #1060])
By the way, Luther later received news from Nuremberg about the dangerous settlements Baumgärtner complained about against Spengler and therefore wrote the most serious letters to Melanchthon, Jonas and Link. (op. cit. p. 168 ff. [StL 21, 1569 #1702])
“…to thank and praise the Lord of the Church for His rich and varied blessings through specific persons, … Professor Friedrich Bente knew this better than most as he labored to produce this historical introduction to the various documents contained in the Book of Concord. Even though Bente reflects older scholarship, and may strike some as too strident in the positions he embraces and the manner in which he writes of his subject matter, his unqualified acceptance of the Book of Concord as a true and unadulterated exposition of the Word of God makes his work extremely helpful for our day and age. While more contemporary treatments of this same subject matter supply many helpful insights and perspectives, they do not surpass Bente’s passionate commitment to being and remaining truly Lutheran. In fact, modern treatments of the same subjects must be very carefully evaluated since they are produced in part by theologians who have intentionally surrendered key points of Lutheran doctrine for the sake of various ecumenical compromises. Intense commitment to the truth confessed in the Book of Concord reflects itself on each page of Bente’s work. He was not interested in creating a novel work to be admired and praised by academia or the guild of scholars. His concern was to provide a resource for those who bear the name Lutheran, and all who wish to understand why the Lutheran church treasures her precious ‘Concordia.’”
 |
| “contemporary treatment” |
17. In the introductions to both the Smalcald Articles (hereafter SA) (page 282) and the FC (page 530), an unfair and inaccurate caricature of Philip Melanchthon is repeated, following Bente. The one-sided charges have been refuted by recent scholarship, but are here repeated and perpetuated, distorting the historical truth and introducing an anti-Melanchthon bias especially to the understanding of the Formula.The historical assessment of Philip Melanchthon is not a doctrinal matter. But repeating Bente’s notorious anti-Melanchthon bias is not an adequate presentation of the current state of confessional scholarship. As mentioned elsewhere, an edition of the Book of Concord must be held to high standards, also in terms of historical scholarship.
.jpg)
If Publisher Paul McCain were the actual author of the Preface, the promoting of Friedrich Bente would be a real example of irony, since McCain regularly referred to a Lutheran theologian of the 1900-1950 era with what he considered to be a disparaging phrase, "bronze age Missourian," even at a time when CPH continued to sell books by such authors.
ReplyDeleteYour report on this caused me to review my thinking. I had given this considerable thought as my report indicates and could not think of *anyone* who came close to the forcefulness of McCain, even with his aberrations otherwise. He had resurrected the reprint of Bente’s Triglotta (see blog of Sept. 9, 2010). He used the Triglotta as a basis for his Concordia, the Lutheran Confessions book.
Delete— Prof. emeritus Thomas Manteufel? Possibly, but I discounted him as not forceful enough.
— Prof. Gerhard Bode - for the same reason.
— Daniel Preus – maybe, but he has shown weakness, especially regarding Kloha.
— Prof. Cameron MacKenzie? What an enigma he is!
— Prof. Lawrence Rast? Not the great defender of Old Missouri.
— Gene Edward Veith? Perhaps, but have not seen him defending Old Missouri theologians.
— Ken Schurb? Perhaps.
When I re-read again the quote above, I was still amazed, shocked! I would not have thought that *anyone* among the LC-MS teachers and leaders was capable of this… defending Bente? It seems that there has been no one in the LC-MS who would defend Old Missouri and was at the same time close to CPH.
As for McCain’s reference to “bronze age Missourians” of the 1900-1950 period, I would not think that he was referring to Bente, who began his career before 1900. I do not defend many theologians who began their careers after 1912, none who started after 1927. And I doubt that he meant Engelder, hopefully not J. T. Mueller or Th. Laetsch. (See my blog post of Nov. 4, 2023)
If there is an authoritative testimony of who was *actually* the author other than McCain, I would love to do a new blog post on that person. Until then, I will hold to my assumption.