M19: M.'s "game of hide-and-seek"

       This continues from Part 18 (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 continues his point, that Melanchthon’s changes at first were not directly “blackening” and so shows how Luther was shielded from Melanchthon's wavering theology. The references to my recently uploaded English translations of Luther's Works helped me greatly to follow Walther's train of thought. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 360-362 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 19 of 28  - - - - - - -

Melanchthon himself also replied, when in 1541 at the Worms Colloquy Eck rejected the Altered Augsburg Confession presented to him as a basis (to Melanchthon's great embarrassment): in it, “nothing was changed in substance and matter, although in these last copies softer and clearer words were used.” (Schmidt's Melanchthon. p. 381. f. Compare Luther's Works. Tom. Hal. XVII, 625. f., 631 [StL 17, 502, 506]) **)  

—————— 

**) Therefore Luther, when Melanchthon had finally let himself be duped in Regensburg after all, wrote to the Electors: “We ask that Your Electoral Grace would not write too harshly to Master Philip and the rest of us, lest he grieve himself to death once again. For they have reserved the dear Confession for them and still remained pure and firm in it, even if everything is lacking.” (XVII, 842 [StL 17, 672])

Secondly, it may have seemed less dangerous to Luther that Melanchthon allowed himself changes only in the Latin text, but left the German Confession, (LuW 361) once handed over to the Emperor, unchanged. The Hauptverteidigung des Augapfels also draws attention to this. It says: 

“Moreover, there is evidence that the German (example) handed over to Emperor Charles V has not endured as many changes as the Latin; as the tenth article remained intact through a special dispensation of God (Apol. F. C. f. 163 [Apology of the Book of Concord (CPH 2018), p. 361]), whereupon the blessed Luther let himself be satisfied, not so much concerned with the Latin.” (p. 344. f.) 

 

Therefore, when Hugo Grotius once claimed that the Confessio Belgica could be changed, in that this had happened to the Augsburg Confession, the Reformed Joh. Gerhardus Vossius (Tom. IV. opp. in epp. selectis p. 4) replied: 

“You say that the Augsburg Confession has been changed. I do not know whether this serves much purpose, because although it was changed by Melanchthon on his own hand, it was never changed under public authority, if I am not mistaken. I know at least so much that Melanchthon was reproached by Luther for having done this without asking anyone for advice.” (Quoted in the introduction to Symb. BB. by J. T. Müller. S. LXIX.) 

Only one more example may provide the proof that Luther did not support Melanchthon, but punished and threatened him himself if, despite Melanchthon's constant game of hide-and-seek, it was revealed to him or if he even had an urgent suspicion that Melanchthon was falsifying the doctrine. 

Since the Wittenberg Concord in 1536, the controversy over the Lord’s Supper had almost completely rested until 1543. During this year, several things came together, which made Luther realize how necessary it was to give a serious public testimony against the Sacramentarians once again. Towards the end of 1542, Luther received the aforementioned letter from Baldassare Altieri in Venice [see Part 6], which he had addressed to Luther on behalf of the Evangelical congregations in Venice, Vicenza and Treviso, complaining not only about the penetration of Zwinglianism in Italy and the pernicious divisions that had arisen among the Evangelicals as a result, but also the opinion that even in Germany there is disagreement about the doctrine of Holy Communion, and he asks for the sending of an "Apologia de conciliatione", which Melanchthon is supposed to have published. *) 

——————                                

*) The wonderful extensive letter (of November 26, 1542) Seckendorf shares in his Commentarius histor. et apologet. de Lutheranismo l. III. s. 25. § 97. P. II, f. 401. f. Deutsch has communicated the same to our dear colleague, Professor Günther, in the Der Lutheraner of November 1 this year. [see reference in StL 21b, 2807 f.]

It is true that this did not confuse Luther about Melanchthon's orthodoxy; rather, we read that Luther, for example, in a letter to Wolferinus of July 20, 1543, resolutely professed his faith in Melanchthon's doctrine of the Holy Communion (Tom. (LuW 362) Hal. XX, 2012. f. [StL 20, 1608 EN]) *) and, as we have already seen, in his reply to the Italian Protestants on November 12, 1544, he testifies that even in the point of the Holy Communion he was devoted to pure biblical teaching with all seriousness. 

—————— 

*) Punished by Luther for his disrespectful treatment of the remaining consecrated elements, Wolferinus appealed to Melanchthon. But Luther answered him: “Master Philip has indeed rightly written that the sacrament is nothing but the sacramental act … so that he rejects the encasement and carrying of the sacrament [Corpus Christi procession]. At the end of his argument, Luther finally writes: “So I mean it and Master Philip means it too, as I don't know otherwise.” (op. cit.) 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 20  - - - - - - - - - -

The letter from Venice that Walther references above (see 2nd to last footnote), and gives the reference to in the Der Lutheraner issue containing its translation, may now be read in English here. It is truly a letter that Luther would have felt strongly about, and would give a proper answer to.  He did so on June 13, 1543 and it is available to read here. Both letters are most worthy of being read by all who love the truth. — In the next Part 20…