Excursus 1: Chemnitz on M.s errors: Philippism, “horrible heresies”

       This continues from Part 12 (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.” — This first "Excursus" brings testimony against Philip Melanchthon from a source that few, if any, LC-MS historians report: Martin Chemnitz, sometimes referred to as the "Second Martin". The following testimonies are admittedly well after Luther's death, but they show the result of Melanchthon's wavering theology from the period even during Luther's life:

      A. The first report I discovered came from the recent translation by James Langebartels of the Apology of the Book of Concord (CPH 2018), a book in part authored by Chemnitz:  

370: "Now even though Melanchthon changed his confession and doctrine in this article [Lord's Supper] and went over to them [Zwingians]…"

371:  opponents "candidly write that Luther, even though he [Luther] knew that Philip forcibly disagreed with him on both articles of the person of Christ and the holy Supper, nevertheless commended his Christianity, recognized him as a pure teacher, and did not allow him to be separated from him." [i.e. "carried" or "tolerated" him]

371: Philip's Corpus doctrinae "was deficient in the doctrines of free will, of the description of the Gospel, of good works, of the Lord’s Supper, and others." [NOW who is the one putting the "black hat" (see Part 5) on Melanchthon? Martin Chemnitz, The Second Martin!]

371: "As far as Philip’s Corpus doctrinae is concerned, it is undeniably true that it was never approved and accepted by all the estates of the Augsburg Confession, as they [Philipists] falsely write. There were always some, and not a few, who not only did not accept and embrace it but also contradicted it in certain points in public print and otherwise."

371: That is why the preface of the Book of Concord [Triglotta p. 27] points out for all of Christendom that Philip’s writings, as far as they agree with the norm of the Formula of Concord, are not to be rejected or condemned. It is sufficiently understood from those words that defects were found in his writings, which must be condemned according to the norm of Holy Scripture. The author of Apology of the Book of Concord speaks on the BoC’s "Preface"'s meaning – that it was irenically, actually, warning people to be on guard with Melanchthon’s writings. 

371: “That is why the preface of the Book of Concord points out for all of Christendom that Philip’s writings, as far as they agree with the norm of the Formula of Concord, are not to be rejected or condemned. It is sufficiently understood from those words that defects were found in his writings, which must be condemned according to the norm of Holy Scripture.” [See also Kolb-Wengert BoC p. 11 fn 25: “The final clause was added at the insistence of the Lower Saxon cities, the Pomeranians, and the theologians of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, who wanted an endorsement of the works of Melanchthon and others but only as they conformed to the Formula or to the works of Luther.” Again, who is putting a “black hat” on Melanchthon?]

372: "But Philip—which unfortu­nately is obvious and cannot be denied—especially after Luther’s death, tore himself away from him in the doctrine of free will." 

373: "But there he [Luther] is not speaking about the Loci [of Melanchthon] which was later altered in a dangerous way, especially after Luther’s death." (See Bente, p. 226 f.; see also p. 448; Kolb, History and Theology, p. 280, speak of this Apology, but leave out Chemnitz's charges against Melanchthon's errors, leaving a gaping hole in their history.)

     B.  The other source of Chemnitz's testimony comes from a later essay by Walther dealing with the Election Controversy.  Most of this forceful essay defended against the use of human writings along with Holy Scripture as the source and norm of doctrine.  The use of human writings among the Evangelicals of the 16th Century was made by the Philippists, as also Bente (p. 105 or here) reported of Melanchthon. And because Walther's opponents at times appealed to Philip Melanchthon for their errors, he was forced to call out these errors.  Walther only had to quote Martin Chemnitz for this purpose. From the 1882 "Foreword" to Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (March 1882) p. 99-103 footnote:

“But after Luther's death, our church was to receive an ever more urgent call to renounce once and for all the practice of not relying solely on God's clear written Word to prove the truth of a doctrine, but to regard the sayings of human teachers, whether old or new, no matter how pious, as doctrinal decisions and to bind the consciences to them. Our church received this call through the so-called Philippism. As is well known, after Luther's death, Philip Melanchthon became so highly regarded in our church that even righteous men were held back in their knowledge and confession of the truth, and dishonest spirits, under the aegis of the Magister Germaniae, tried to smuggle horrible heresies [Ketzereien] into our church, pretending that these doctrines were doctrines of our Confessions, as the writings of their main author, the great Melanchthon, irrefutably show. *)

_________________

*) Let us here follow a twofold index of the errors that can be found in Melanchthon's later writings. When in 1579 a doctrinal dispute had broken out among the members of the ministry of Halle, caused by Philippists, the city council asked Martin Chemnitz for mediation to settle it, the result of which was a “contract” drawn up by Chemnitz, in which it says, among other things, as follows: 

“Secondly, with regard to the writings of Master Philip, because they contain a beautiful method and many good useful explanations, it should be held that these (as the Formula of Concord also says of these and other useful writings), insofar as they conform to the norm of doctrine [i.e. Holy Scripture], are not rejected and condemned; but the norm of doctrine they cannot be. For what is in the Locus [of Melanchthon] of 

[1] free will for incorrectness and deficiency can be rejected as clear as day (ad oculum). 

[2] The Locus on Holy Communion <page 100> is not properly and clearly explained, 

[a] whether one should remain with the words of institution, as they are, without tropes and figures; 

[b] again, what we received with our mouths in the Lord's Supper; 

[c] also of the enjoyment of the unworthy is not explained, but in the exposition of 1 Corinthians a metonymy is put in the words of the Lord's Supper, as the fasces [axe] is the kingdom; 

[d] also in Malachi's explanation towards the end, the rule regarding usage is thus set: ‘The taking actually contains the nature (rationem) of a sacrament in those who take it with faith’; 

[e] as also the sayings of the ancients about the Lord's Supper, once collected and edited by Philip, have been deliberately excluded from his works. 

[3] Thus also is conscious what is stated concerning Colossians 3 in the article of Christ's ascension and of His sitting at the right hand of God concerning the physical taking of place (locatio), and how the promises of Christ's presence in the church are referred to the divine nature alone. Indeed, it is also the doctrine of the communication of majesty in Philip Melanchthon's writings is not sufficiently different and correctly explained. And 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." (Fortgeschichte Sammlung von alten und neuen theologie Sachen auf das Jahr 1743. p. 32 f.)

Thus wrote one Chemnitz, who himself had been a student and great admirer of Melanchthon and had lectured on his Loci!”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Chemnitz wasn't the only theologian to enumerate Melanchthon's errors. Walther continues his lengthy footnote with quotes from an extensive listing by a 17th Century Lutheran theologian… in our next Excursus 2. But before that, Part 13. (In Part 20, we will see how modernist Lutheran historians attempt to refute Chemnitz.)