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

[2024-09-02: updated link to Walther's Law & Gospel book to the Internet Archive borrowable copy.]

       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!

M14: M.: Luther did not carry me; Keith & Green "perceived errors" vs. Chemnitz

       This continues from Part 13, and Excursus 2, (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 masterfully shows how either Luther was the greatest hypocrite or he did not believe Melanchthon was actually leaning towards Zwingli. Melanchthon's "servitude" statement reveals much about him, much more than the defenders of Melanchthon's legacy want to admit. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 353-354 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 14 of 28  - - - - - - -

  

An indirect proof of the fact that Luther, as often as Melanchthon's deviations were announced to him, did not overlook or "carry" them, but then intervened against them immediately, are Melanchthon's repeated complaints, ever and always, especially in the last years of Luther's life, that he felt himself pressed to the extreme at Luther's side and thought of exile. We have already stated above Melanchthon's complaint in his letters to Carlowitz [Part 11]: 

“I have also in the past carried an almost shameful servitude, since Luther was often of a disposition in which there was no small quarreling, more than served either his position or the common good” *). [Latin/Greek; Bente p. 106]

—————— 

*) This has always been the way of those who harbored false doctrines but dared not come out into the open because they had to fear the still living, resolute representatives of the pure doctrine, to complain secretly, and after their death also publicly, about experienced "servitude," tyranny of conscience, pressures, domineering, arrogance and the like.

What else does Melanchthon say here but that Luther did not carry him, did not hold any deviation to his credit, but, if he noticed such a deviation, immediately intervened against him, and that Melanchthon, as often as he deviated, had to carefully conceal this and constantly had to be concerned to be called to account by Luther for it? Or could Melanchthon have complained so bitterly of Luther in the year 1548 about an earlier “almost ignominious servitude” toward Luther, if, however, Luther, as his most important assistant and as a man otherwise highly deserving before others, had given him the freedom to depart here and there from the truth recognized by him, Luther? Does not this complaint prove clearly and unambiguously that Melanchthon, fearing Luther's wrath, often agreed to Luther's statements with inner reluctance? 

 

(LuW 354) 

Another indirect proof that Luther did not carry Melanchthon's deviations, when they came to his knowledge, are Luther's many explanations that he could not give way to any man, any angel, in short, any creature, in his doctrine, and precisely also in his doctrine, in which Melanchthon is urgently suspected of having deviated already in Luther's lifetime. To cite here only a few such explanations, so Luther wrote in October of 1544 in his “Brief Confession of the Holy Sacrament against the Enthusiasts,” and indeed, as history proves, also to Melanchthon, too, as a warning: 

“I count them all in one cake, *) as they are, who do not want to believe that the Lord's bread in the Lord's Supper is His right, natural body, which the wicked or Judas receives just as orally as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever, I say, does not want to believe, let me be at peace with letters, writings, or words, and do not hope for any fellowship with me; nothing else will come of it.” (XX, 2212 [StL 20, 1778, § 41]) 

—————— 

*) Immediately before, Luther had said, “His name is Stenkefeld, Zwingel, or whatever he wants.”

Still a few weeks before his death, on January 17, 1546, Luther wrote to the preacher Jakob Probst: 

“I, most unfortunate of all men, have had enough of this blessedness of the Psalm: 'Blessed is the man who does not walk in the council of the sacramentarians, nor tread in the way of the Zwinglians, nor sit where the people of Zurich sit. There you have it, which is my opinion.” (XVII, 2634 [StL 17, 2177]) 

If Luther had known that Melanchthon was also a stubborn Zwinglian and had cultivated the most intimate fellowship with him, that would have proved that Luther was the greatest hypocrite the sun ever shone on, and that his whole fight against the Swiss was not based on the fear of God's Word, but on personal hatred or envy and arrogance. But who will claim this other than a blind papist, for example? 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 15  - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part 15…

- - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Drs. Scott Keith, Lowell Green :   - - - - - - - -

 

Dr. Scott Keith, in his "Foreword" to his 2021 reprint of Dr. Lowell Green's book, asserts the following, page xix, of Melanchthon, that he only had

“… perceived later doctrinal errors.”

This assertion wants to deny that Melanchthon even had doctrinal errors, even in his later years—that they were only "perceived" errors, and not real. Both Drs. Keith and Green reveal that Dr. Green's actual purpose in his book, whose title speaks only of Melanchthon's early years, is to deny Melanchthon's later errors. Perhaps Dr. Keith feels that he is only rebutting the Old Missouri historians like Bente and Walther.  But that would negate the testimony of 

• Martin Chemnitz, Timothy Kirchner, and Nicolaus Selnecker, the authors of the Apology of the Book of Concord (see Excursus 1), 
• Leonhard Hutter (Excursus 2), 
• Valentin Löscher (Parts 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and Excursus 3)
• Johann Wigand and Timothy Kirchner (again) at the Altenburg Colloquium (Part 16),

not to mention 

• Amsdorf, whom Luther approved of in so many doctrinal disputes, 
• Cordatus (Parts 5, 6, 15), 
• Ratzenberger (or Ratzeberger) (Parts 6, 10, 15, 26) [a physician and theologian close to Luther, even standing in for him at some assemblies, yet a thorough Internet search found no image of the dear Matthäus Ratzeberger], 
• Baumgartner (Parts 9, 10),
• Quenstedt (Part 12), 
• John Calvin (Parts 8, 12), who carried on considerable correspondence with Melanchthon, 
• Lewis W. Spitz, Jr., editor of AE 34, who stated of Melanchthon p. 327, fn #1: “Under humanist and slightly under Calvinist influences, he was inclined to deviate from his earlier positions, for example, in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, free will, and the necessity of good works for salvation”,
• Paul McCain, who by endorsing Bente's history (Part 9), tacitly approves of the reproofs of M.'s later errors, and even
• Dr. Lowell Green, who admitted on p. 229 (1980 ed.): “Melanchthon and his associates had made unfortunate concessions to the demands of the Roman Catholic emperor, who attempted to suppress the Protestant cause.” 

Does Dr. Scott Keith really want to overrule even Martin Chemnitz's judgment? Apparently so for he asserts in his "Preface" to the 2021 reprint of Dr. Green that (p. xix, emphasis mine)

"This teaching ["salvation by grace alone through faith alone", i.e. the Gospel], according to Melanchthon, and Dr. Green, is incomplete without the addition of a changed will compelled to be sent out in love to share the gospel, spread the 'good news' and be the ambassador of Christ to family and neighbor." 

"A changed will compelled to be sent out in love…"? That is not properly distinguishing Law and Gospel. "A changed will" is effected by the Gospel. Then Dr. Keith would have the Law preached to further have the will "compelled". The Law compels. What kind of scholarship is that? A scholarship bent on "trampling Christ under foot." (Dr. Keith's "1517 Publishing" boasted that they "promote… the distinction between law and gospel" on the copyright page of a 2018 book they published.) —  But unfortunately Dr. Keith goes on to the heart of Dr. Green's assertion—regarding the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification, which will be covered in another blog post, Part 25.

Excursus 2: Hutter on Melanchthon's errors; Formula ends appeals to Melanchthon

       This continues from Excursus 1 (or Part 13) (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 introduces the testimony of 17th century theologian Leonard Hutter, regarded as "a champion of Lutheran orthodoxy" who followed in Luther's footsteps at Wittenberg. Hutter not only corroborates Chemnitz's list, he adds to it.  From Walther's 1882 "Foreword" to Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (March 1882) p. 100-103 footnote [EN]:

 

Leonhard Hutter gives a similar listing of the serious errors occurring in Melanchthon's writings in his Concordia Concors, although he too had taken part of the answers from Melanchthon's writings in his Compendium. There he writes: 

“As far as the Altered (Augsburg) Confession is concerned, truth-loving readers should note that it confirms Synergism, mixes the Gospel with the Law, perverts the legitimate use of the indifferent things, opens the gates wide to Calvinism, and finally flatters the Roman Pontiff in a servile manner. As for the Loci, …  as they are incorporated into the Corpus doctrinae, they are full of the grossest errors. We must judge the same of the Examen ordinandorum, of the Confessio to be delivered to the Tridentine Synod, and of the Responsio ad articulos Bavaricos; and this we prove as follows. 

I. In the Locis and in the ‘Examen’ it is asserted: ‘That the Son of God was born of the Father by thinking of Himself’. 

II. The Corpus doctrinae asserts: ‘That a real communication of properties is no other than the physical one’ and that it is to be defined <page 101> according to the rule of Theodoret: ‘Union makes names common’. As if only a verbal and not a real sharing of attributes had taken place in the personal union, and as if it could not be a real one if it were not defined by a physical outpouring! 

III. He does not place the election only in God's will and mercy, but partly in man's will. For he expressly says: ‘In man there is and must be a cause why some are chosen to salvation, others rejected and condemned’. And again: ‘Since the promise is general and in God there are not contradictory wills, there must necessarily be a cause of difference in us, why a Saul is rejected, a David accepted, that is, in these two there must be an unequal doing.’ In the Locus of free will. 

IV. These emblems are diametrically opposed to the orthodox doctrine of free will: 

1. ‘That there is a cause in us why some consent to the promise of grace and others do not.’ 

2. ‘If we comfort ourselves with the promise or with the Gospel and raise ourselves up by faith, the Holy Spirit is given to us at the same time.’ Art. 5. of the Altered [Augsburg] Confession. 

3. ‘Spiritual righteousness is worked in us when we are supported by the Holy Spirit.’ Further: ‘We receive the Holy Spirit when we agree with the word of God.' Art. 18. of the Altered [Augsburg] Conf. 

4: ‘Free will and reason alone can do nothing in the spiritual.’ Art. 18 of the Altered German [Augsburg] Conf. 

5. 'Free will is the ability to send oneself to grace, that is, it hears the promise and strives (conatur) to assent and casts away the sin against conscience from itself.’ Locus on the free will. 

6. In conversion, these causes compete: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, which the Father and the Son send to inflame our hearts, and our consenting will, which is not opposed to the Word of God? Again, 

7. In the same Locus, certain sayings of the ancients are cited in defense of free will: ‘Just will, and God will come before you’. Further: ‘God draws, but the willing.’ Further: ‘Grace precedes, the will accompanies’. But this suffices regarding free will. 

V. Of the Law of God, the right doctrine of the Word of God is not preserved intact in Philip's Corpus doctrinae, in that sometimes what is the proper office of the Law is ascribed to the Gospel, and these two doctrinal genres are mixed with each other. 

VI. The Gospel is sometimes defined in this Corpus as being ‘a preaching of repentance,’ even in so far as it is contrasted with the Law. In the Altered [Augsburg] Conf., in the Locis, in the Definitions, etc. 

VII. The same Corpus doctrinae states ‘that faith is partly a work of the Holy Spirit, partly our work,’ as is evident from the above-mentioned phrases of Philip on free will. 

VIII. 1. In the whole Corpus doctrinae there is no complete and sufficient definition of the ‘righteousness of faith’. 

2. the righteousness <page 102> of the Gospel is imperfectly and ambiguously defined as ‘a light in the heart, which by faith and the knowledge of Christ kindles the mind to the true invocation of God and other godly movements according to the Law, and begins eternal life’. 

3. In the definition of the righteousness of faith, no mention is made of the righteousness or obedience of Christ imputed through faith; whereas this imputation alone constitutes the essential (formalis) cause of our justification. 

4. Nor is a clear distinction made between imputed righteousness and the new nature begun. 

5. In the Locis, Philip does not deal orthodoxly and Lutheranly with the true use of the exclusive particles in the article of justification. For so he writes under the heading: ‘Of the word Grace’: ‘It is to be observed most diligently that the exclusive particle in vain, which is often repeated by Paul, is contained in the definition of grace. But by these exclusives it is indicated that there is a reconciliation for the sake of the Son of God, the Mediator, not for our worthiness, not for our merits, virtues, or actions. But this particle does not exclude the virtues themselves, but excludes the condition of worthiness or merit, and makes the cause of reconciliation the Son of God alone.’ 

6. The necessity of works for salvation is asserted in the Locus of justification in these words: ‘We say that in those who are to be saved there must be repentance, faith, beginning obedience, or charity.’ 

7. That works are necessary for the preservation of faith is explained by Philip in the Locus of good works. 

IX. Of the sacraments in general he teaches that they are only a sealing of regeneration, not the means by which regeneration takes place. 

X. The Corpus doctrinae of Philip does not sufficiently give and explain the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in thesi: 

1. Nowhere does he say with Luther that the blessed bread in the use of the sacrament is Christ's true body. Nowhere does he say that Christ's true body is truly enjoyed with the mouth of the body by the partakers. Indeed, he passes over the question about the essence and the essential parts of the Eucharist with profound silence. 

2. He completely omits the antithesis against the Sacramentarians; indeed, in the altered tenth article of the Augsburg Confession he has completely obliterated it. 

3. In the doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he makes use of ambiguous and ambivalent expressions, so that he must be quite obtuse who does not see that here both Lutheranism and Calvinism have a very safe hiding place. 

4. After abolishing the definition of the Lord's Supper given by the same Luther, he replaces it with a completely new and almost mysterious one in the ‘Examen’, which neither declares what the same is, nor even reaches the nature of the <page 103> sacraments in any way, but fits the Sacramentarians as well as us like a stage shoe. 

XI. Concerning the proper use of indifferent things [adiaphora], Philip has erred gravely and dangerously both in theory and practice.” (Concordia concors p. 344 sqq.) 

Thus a Chemnitz and a Hutter report of the great, celebrated teacher within our Church, of Melanchthon, who stood by Luther so faithfully for so many years and was so highly placed by him, indeed, who had been the blessed instrument for the conception of our fundamental Confession and for the adoption of the Apology of the same, to whom now, after Luther's death, not only malicious enemies of the truth but also many excellent men referred. What would have happened to our church, therefore, if this appeal had not been put to an end forever by our church through a solemn declaration? Our church in its visible form would have perished 300 years ago. But, praise God! Our dear Formula of Concord has put an end for all times to all appeal not only to a Melanchthon, but at the same time to the private writings of all, even the most excellent teachers of our church, regarding the Word of God and the Confessions, as well as all allegedly authentic interpretations of the latter on the basis of those writings of our church.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End of Walther's footnote  - - - - - - - - - - - -

We will document how modern LC-MS theologians and pastors today attempt to muddy the waters against these witnesses... in the next Part 14, and also in Part 15. — Then later, after Part 16, we present Excursus 3, testimony from an outstanding Lutheran theologian from 18th century.