M16: M.: "necessary cause", “What bondage it was”; the many editions of Melanchthon's Loci

       This continues from Part 15 (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 translates documents which provide solid evidence of what modern historians whitewash—Melanchthon's inclination towards certain un-Lutheran errors. But Walther balances this with Melanchthon's statement that avoids the pitfall of the words "for salvation".  All of this proves Walther's thesis that Luther would not "carry" Melanchthon's errors if he knew of them. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 356-357 [EN]: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 16 of 28  - - - - - - -

It is quite true that Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich in 1538: 

“You have caused me greater distress by issuing a psalm, where you sprinkle something about the causa sine qua non [necessary cause or condition] and about the (as you speak) causa secunda [second cause]. What will our critics, or rather sycophants, say? — You have corrupted Luther's interpretation" (of the 51st Psalm) "in my favor. You will be accused of the crime of forgery. He himself, whether he may have said so (!) or may not have said so, will want to issue violent statements and to erase and destroy those designations of the causes. In that fact I look forward to a new tragedy. Nor is the matter explained in accordance with the theological artificial language (τεχνιχως) when you say: although the whole thing depends on mercy, the recognition of sin is the second (subordinate) cause of forgiveness.…  

It is a linguistic error which, although insignificant, will create new turmoil for us. What bondage it was (!) when you were here, you remember. And yet you shall know that it has now become much harder. And that is why I observed this Pythagorean silence for a while with certain intentions, so as not to give any opportunity for tumult.” (C. R. III, 593. f.) 

One can see from this that although Luther, as Melanchthon himself reports, had "exceedingly lovingly" talked about the matter with him, Melanchthon had no doubt noticed that Luther was very serious here, where the purity of the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae [article by which the church stands or falls] was concerned. **)

—————— 

**) Later, in 1555, Melanchthon wrote: “Although this proposition is to be held: Nova obedientia est necessaria, [A new obedience is necessary], we do not want to attach the words ‘ad salutem’ [for salvation] to it, because this appendix is interpreted on the meritum, and would obscure the doctrine of grace.” (C. R. VIII, 410) 

Incidentally, the ducal Saxon theologians [Johann] Wigand, [Timotheous] Kirchner and others in the Altenburg Colloquium rightly remarked to the electors, Paul Eber, Caspar Cruciger and others: “If, however, the same author subsequently secretly incorporated into his books those seeds of his old error, Luther, who was withdrawn from so much business and writing and buried in it, could not have been such a hundred-eyed Argus, as it were, that he saw and noticed all the editions, differences and changes of those books.” (Acta etc. f. 138) It is downright absurd to assume that Luther must have read through each of the many editions of Melanchthon's Loci and thus must have experienced it, as often as Melanchthon again made changes to them according to his habit. (LuW 357)

 

Another occasion when it became apparent that Luther was not inclined to carry [or put up with] false doctrine and to overlook it, even if it concerned his Melanchthon, who was so dear to him, was the following. The court preacher of Duke Heinrich's in Freiberg, Jakob Schenk [DE], asked in a letter addressed to Melanchthon and Jonas whether one could take Holy Communion under one form under tyrants. Melanchthon affirmed this in his reply and sought to justify his opinion. Schenk, who not only expected a quite different answer, but also seemed to have wanted it for the sake of certain causes, immediately sent Melanchthon's answer to the Elector as proof that Melanchthon's teaching could not be right. Now this matter alone would not have kindled a great fire. But at the same time, the Elector had heard several other rumors about Melanchthon's and Cruciger's position on Luther and his teachings, which worried him. 

As a result, the Elector commissioned his faithful chancellor Brück, in a letter dated May 5, 1537 (l. c. 365), to first consult with Luther on this matter. With astonishment, Brück learned that Luther was already prepared for such disclosures. Brück reports about his conversation with Luther to Elector Johann Friedrich, among other things, as follows: 

“Dr. Martin says and confesses that he would never have thought that Philip was still so stuck in his fantasies.”

(Melanchthon must therefore have tried to make Luther forget his suspicious utterances again and again through good explanations). 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 17  - - - - - - - - - -

Luther “thought that Philip was still so stuck in his fantasies.” Modern historians avoid the reports such as this in order to allow their own narratives of what they think the situation was between Melanchthon and Luther. — In the next Part 17…  

      But before that, we present "Excursus 3" on another orthodox Lutheran historian's judgment of the legacy of Melanchthon's errors.