M22: Unsuspecting Luther… but only too soon…; Kolb avoids Luther's explosive letter

       This continues from Part 21 (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 shows his great knowledge of Luther's writings as he captures Luther's spirit, e.g. on the matter of the term "synecdoche". Walther first concludes Cruciger's letter to Dietrich.  — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 365-366 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 22 of 28  - - - - - - -

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]) 

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]) 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 23  - - - - - - - - - -

I have scoured the histories of the modernist LC-MS theologians Drs. Robert Kolb and Lowell Green to no avail. Although Kolb reports about the Cologne document in his books about Amsdorf (1978 and 2019), he, and all others, fail to mention not only Luther's biting critique of the "Cologne Reformation" or "Book of Cologne", but also the explosive situation that followed it. Instead he offers long narratives of psychoanalysis asserting that (2019, p. 39, [2024-04-21: 1978, p. 57) "Melanchthon continued to correspond with Amsdorf in a friendly fashion" through this whole period. — In Part 23…

M21: L. calmed, but M. “himself was not calm”

       This continues from Part 20 (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.” — What Walther reports here of Melanchthon's state of mind is rarely reported on by modernist historians. —  This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 363-365 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 21 of 28  - - - - - - -

One can see from this that even if Melanchthon had calmed Luther by glosses that could be heard, he himself was not calm; as often as Luther “thundered” at this against the sacramentarians, he feared nothing the less, it was his own business. So it was no wonder then that Melanchthon, when he heard that Luther would again write against the sacramentarians, and when it was rumored that Luther would also call him an opponent on this occasion, was startled. He now feared without doubt that he had become manifest to Luther. Thus, as already noted, he wrote to Bucer on August 28, 1544: 

“Of our Pericles, I wrote to you through Milichius that he begins to thunder again over the Lord's Supper and has written a horrible (atrocem) book, which has not yet been published, in which I and you are attacked. For this cause he was in these days near Amsdorf, whom he alone draws into the fellowship of this matter and who alone approves of these outbursts. [i.e. Amsdorf, not Melanchthon] As I hear, he will call me and (LuW 364) Cruciger to him tomorrow. … I am a quiet bird and will not be reluctant to leave this prison if I should be pushed hostilely. In a short time you will know the further course of events.” (p. 474) 

How Melanchthon wrote to Bullinger on August 30 about the writing [of Luther] he awaited with great anxiety has already been mentioned above [in Part 7]. At about the same time he also wrote to Jonas: 

“I have written this to you with a sorrowful heart about that of which I communicated to you the other day. For now one expects that it will come to a meeting. A formula about the Lord's Supper is presented, of which I do not know what it will be like.” (p. 476) 

Cruciger also reports the same to his friend Veit Dietrich under September 7 with the following words: 

“For the sake of the Cologne church order, Philip has come under suspicion; in the same, however, he himself wrote nothing about the Eucharist, nor did he seem to be allowed to disapprove of Bucer's opinion, as far as doctrine is concerned. But our zealot (Amsdorf), stiff as he is, has also inflamed our master (Luther). And, as I hear, he argues that not even a synecdoche is to be permitted in the words of the Lord's Supper; *) 

—————— 

*) Cruciger is wrong here. Luther had not even read the Cologne Reformation formula at that time. Also, as is well known, Luther rejected the rhetorical but not the grammatical synecdoche in the sacramental words. 

and ours (Luther), when he was with that one (Amsdorf) the other day, is said to have written a little book, which no one has yet seen, and now, I hear, he is preparing a formula which he wants us all to sign, perhaps with the intention of publishing what he has written. At least he has been heard to say that if one of us believes differently than he does, he will not stay here. You see, therefore, what might happen if he should present a formula that is too strict, especially with anathematizations, by which also those are to be condemned who, out of weakness or mere error, believe differently in other churches, or who do not want to approve even this, which he once stiffly asserted with “N.”: the bread is God etc. **) 

—————— 

**) This too Cruciger says, contrary to all truth, that it is to be expected of Luther that he will also want to condemn those who err out of weakness; and, in any case, it was an empty rumor that Luther (or Amsdorf?) had ever claimed that the bread was God. 

Therefore the other (Melanchthon) decided that he should rather go straight out of the city than agree or argue with the Master.” (p. 477) 

Now all this was indeed empty fears of an evil conscience. When Luther's so dreaded “Brief Confession [Concerning the Holy Sacrament]” had finally appeared at the beginning of October 1544 [StL 20, 1764 EN], the same Cruciger therefore wrote to Dietrich on October 7: 

“Ours [Luther] did not give any hint of disfavor against us, although one could tell from his addresses beforehand that he had harbored, I do not know what, suspicions. Also, the published booklet is written much more moderately (LuW 365) than one had hoped, although there is no doubt that some have been annoyed by it for the sake of certain all too harsh words, such as that he calls almost without distinction those ‘devilish’ who believe the opposite. *) … 

——————                                           

*) Luther does not say of his opponents directly that they have a "devilish" etc. heart, but speaks conditionally that, if the opponents called his God a “baked God, bread God,” etc., he could have paid them with similar coin. 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 22  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther helps all Christians as he highlights how the enemies of the truth can misuse and misquote Luther, not just by Papists, but also those inclined to Zwingli’s doctrine, and sadly, also by some who today call themselves… Lutheran.  In the next Part 22…

M20: Transubstantiation, Venetians, Swiss; Kolb against Chemnitz

       This continues from Part 19 (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.” — How can these supporters of Melanchthon today overlook what Walther documents here? Walther perfectly explains Luther's comments on transubstantiation, while today's LC-MS theologians act like papist polemicists. Only erring Lutherans say that Luther admits transubstantiation. That includes the LC-MS in 1971 - see CTM vol. 42, No. 10 (Nov. 1971), p. 645 ("this doctrine is on the basis…"); Dr. Lowell Green hints at it in his essay of 1978 p. 218 ("less displeasure with the concept of transubstantiation.")]  — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 362-363 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 20 of 28  - - - - - - -

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)  

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) 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 21  - - - - - - - - - -

When Melanchthon asserted above that "antiquity [i.e. Church Fathers] has spoken about this matter much differently than modern times", he is invoking Church Fathers in doctrinal matters against Holy Scripture, as pointed out in Part 2. This is another example of what Melanchthon's own student, Martin Chemnitz, charges against his teacher, the "Preceptor". Chemnitz testified of this (see Excursus 1): 

"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."

Prof. Bente is therefore justified in his Historical Introductions when he states (p. 60 or here) that "Philippism was definitely defeated in the Formula of Concord." Martin Chemnitz said so. — 

Philippist historians

      But Dr. Robert Kolb et al, in his History and Theology of the Book of Concord, p. 128, asserts that

“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.”

Chemnitz directly refutes Dr. Robert Kolb's assertion of Melanchthon's "principle of biblical authority …as warmly as" Luther, and presents specific examples of Melanchthon's erring doctrines due to his weakness of this principle. The writer(s) of these lines is clearly a "Philippist". Kolb et al. (Dr. Kolb) ignores the very real evidence that Walther brings out from Melanchthon's own letter to Veit Dietrich where he relies on Church Father against Scripture's teaching of the Lord's Supper. Walther's intent is not to tear Melanchthon down, but to defend the truth of Holy Scripture, something explicitly lacking in Dr. Kolb's History. And this is his "much greater precision"? — In the next Part 21…