Kitabı oku: «Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church», sayfa 45

200. Melanchthon's Private Views

While Melanchthon in a public and formal way, continued, in the manner indicated, to maintain orthodox appearances till his death, he had inwardly and in reality since 1530 come to be more and more of a stranger to Luther's firmness of conviction, also with respect to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Influenced by an undue respect for the authority of the ancient fathers and misled by his reason or, as Luther put it, by his philosophy, he gradually lost his firm hold on the clear words of the institution of the Holy Supper. As a result he became a wavering reed, driven to and fro with the wind, now verging toward Luther, now toward Calvin. Always oscillating between truth and error, he was unable to rise to the certainty of firm doctrinal conviction, and the immovable stand which characterized Luther. In a letter dated May 24, 1538, in which he revealed the torments of his distracted and doubting soul, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Know that for ten years neither a night nor a day has passed in which I did not reflect on this matter," the Lord's Supper. (C. R. 3, 537.) And his doubts led to a departure from his own former position, – a fact for which also sufficient evidences are not wholly lacking. "Already in 1531," says Seeberg, "Melanchthon secretly expressed his opinion plainly enough to the effect that it was sufficient to acknowledge a presence of the divinity of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but not a union of the body and the bread. Ep., p.85." (Dogg. 4, 2, 447.)

That Melanchthon's later public statements and protestations concerning his faithful adherence to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession must be more or less discounted, appears, apart from other considerations, from his own admission that he was wont to dissimulate in these and other matters; from his private letters, in which he favorably refers to the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution; from his communication to Philip of Hesse with regard to Luther's article on the Lord's Supper at Smalcald, referred to in a previous chapter; from the changes which he made 1540 in Article X of the Augsburg Confession; from his later indefinite statements concerning the real presence in the Holy Supper; from his intimate relations and his cordial correspondence with Calvin; from his public indifference and neutrality during the eucharistic controversy with the Calvinists; and from his unfriendly attitude toward the champions of Luther in this conflict.

201. Misled by Oecolampadius and Bucer

That Melanchthon permitted himself to be guided by human authorities rather than by the clear Word of God alone, appears from the fact that Oecolampadius's Dialogus of 1530 – which endeavored to show that the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution is found also in the writings of the Church Fathers, notably in those of St. Augustine, and which Melanchthon, in a letter to Luther (C. R. 2, 217), says, was written "with greater exactness (accuratius) than he is otherwise wont to write" – made such a profound impression on him that ever since, as is shown by some of his private letters, to which we shall presently refer, he looked with increasing favor on the figurative interpretation. As a result, Melanchthon's attitude toward the Southern Germans and the Zwinglians also underwent a marked change. When he left to attend the conference with Bucer at Cassel, in December, 1534, Luther in strong terms enjoined him to defend the sacramental union and the oral eating and drinking; namely, that in and with the bread the body of Christ is truly present, distributed, and eaten. Luther's Opinion in this matter, dated December 17, 1534, concludes as follows "Und ist Summa das unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brot der Leib Christi gegessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brot wirkt und leidet, der Leib Christi wirke und leide, dass er ausgeteilt [ge]gessen und mit den Zaehnen zerbissen werde." (St. L. 17, 2052.) Self-evidently, when writing thus, Luther had no Capernaitic eating and drinking in mind, his object merely being, as stated to emphasize the reality of the sacramental union. January [1]0, 1535, however, the day after his return from Cassel, Melanchthon wrote to his intimate friend Camerarius that at Cassel he had been the messenger not of his own, but of a foreign opinion. (C. R. 2, 822)

As a matter of fact, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg a convert to the compromise formula of Bucer, according to which Christ's body and blood are truly and substantially received in the Sacrament, but are not really connected with the bread and wine, the signs or signa exhibitiva, as Bucer called them. Stating the difference between Luther and Bucer, as he now saw it, Melanchthon said: "The only remaining question therefore is the one concerning the physical union of the bread and body, – and of what need is this question? Tantum igitur reliqua est quaestio de physica coniunctione panis et corporis, qua quaestione quid opus est?" (C. R. 2, 827. 842; St. L. 17, 2057.) To Erhard Schnepf he had written: "He [Bucer] confesses that, when these things, bread and wine, are given, Christ is truly and substantially present. As for me I would not demand anything further." (C. R. 2, 787.) In February he wrote to Brenz: "I plainly judge that they [Bucer, etc.] are not far from the view of our men; indeed in the matter itself they agree with us (reipsa convenire); nor do I condemn them." (2, 843; St. L. 17, 2065.) This, however, was not Luther's view. In a following letter Melanchthon said: "Although Luther does not openly condemn it [the formula of Bucer], yet he did not wish to give his opinion upon it as yet. Lutherus, etsi non plane damnat, tamen nondum voluit pronuntiare." (C. R. 2, 843; St. L. 17, 2062.) A letter of February 1, 1535, to Philip of Hesse and another of February 3, to Bucer, also both reveal, on the one hand, Melanchthon's desire for a union on Bucer's platform and, on the other, Luther's attitude of aloofness and distrust. (C. R. 2, 836. 841.)

202. Secret Letters and the Variata of 1540

In the letter to Camerarius of January 10, 1535, referred to in the preceding paragraph, Melanchthon plainly indicates that his views of the Holy Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. "Do not ask for my opinion now," says he, "for I was the messenger of an opinion foreign to me, although, forsooth, I will not hide what I think when I shall have heard what our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personally or when I shall have more reliable messengers. Meam sententiam noli nunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo, quid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re tota aut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios." (2, 822.) Two days later, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly in Greek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which he regarded as dangerous, as, e. g., in his defamatory letter to Camerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; C. R. 1, 754), in which he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his own true inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthon was no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation of the words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entire doctrine concerning the Holy Supper.

The letter reads, in part, as follows: "You have written several times concerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, even though they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, if there are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or other articles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such who are to be execrated… Concerning the Concord, however, no action whatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinions here [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personally concerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, and readily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the real presence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author or defender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are many testimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain the mystery typically and tropically [peri tupou kai tropikos], while the opposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, will have to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I do wish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case without sophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed on account of this opinion. And many applaud such judgments without any good reason, and strengthen the fury of the tyrants. To tell the truth, this matter pains me not a little. Therefore my only request is that you do not pass on this matter rashly, but consult also the ancient Church. I most fervently desire that a concord be effected without any sophistry. But I desire also that good men may be able to confer on this great matter in a friendly manner. Thus a concord might be established without sophistry. For I do not doubt that the adversaries would gladly abandon the entire dogma if they believed that it was new. You know that among them are many very good men. Now they incline toward Luther, being moved by a few testimonies of ecclesiastical writers. What, then, do you think, ought to be done? Will you forbid also that we confer together? As for me, I desire that we may be able frequently to confer together on this matter as well as on many others. You see that in other articles they as well as we now explain many things more skilfully (dexterius) since they have begun to be agitated among us more diligently. However, I conclude and ask you to put the best construction on this letter, and, after reading it, to tear it up immediately, and to show it to nobody." (C. R. 2, 823f.; Luther, St. L. 17, 2060.)

In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 23, 1538, Melanchthon declares: "In order not to deviate too far from the ancients, I have maintained a sacramental presence in the use, and said that, when these things are given, Christ is truly present and efficacious. That is certainly enough. I have not added an inclusion or a connection by which the body is affixed to, concatenated or mixed with, the bread. Sacraments are covenants [assuring us] that something else is present when the things are received. Nec addidi inclusionem aut coniunctionem talem, qua affigeretur to arto, to soma, aut ferruminaretur, aut misceretur. Sacramenta pacta sunt, ut rebus sumptis adsit aliud… What more do you desire? And this will have to be resorted to lest you defend what some even now are saying, viz., that the body and blood are tendered separately —separatim tradi corpus et sanguinem. This too, is new and will not even please the Papists. Error is fruitful, as the saying goes. That physical connection (illa physica coniunctio) breeds many questions: Whether the parts are separate; whether included; when [in what moment] they are present; whether [they are present] apart from the use. Of this nothing is read among the ancients. Nor do I, my dear Veit, carry these disputations into the Church; and in the Loci I have spoken so sparingly on this matter in order to lead the youth away from these questions. Such is in brief and categorically what I think. But I wish that the two most cruel tyrants, animosity and sophistry, would be removed for a while, and a just deliberation held concerning the entire matter. If I have not satisfied you by this simple answer, I shall expect of you a longer discussion. I judge that in this manner I am speaking piously, carefully, and modestly concerning the symbols, and approach as closely as possible to the opinion of the ancients." (C. R. 3, 514f.) A month later, May 24, Melanchthon again added: "I have simply written you what I think, nor do I detract anything from the words. For I know that Christ is truly and substantially present and efficacious when we use the symbols. You also admit a synecdoche. But to add a division and separation of the body and blood, that is something altogether new and unheard of in the universal ancient Church." (3, 536; 7, 882.)

Evidently, then, Melanchchton's attitude toward the Reformed and his views concerning the Lord's Supper had undergone remarkable changes since 1530. And in order to clear the track for his own changed sentiments and to enable the Reformed, in the interest of an ultimate union, to subscribe the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon, in 1540, altered its Tenth Article in the manner set forth in a previous chapter. Schaff remarks: Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper "was in various ways officially recognized in the Augsburg Confession of 1540." (1, 280.) Such at any rate was the construction the Reformed everywhere put on the alteration. It was generally regarded by them to be an essential concession to Calvinism. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this; but he did absolutely nothing to obviate this interpretation – no doubt, because it certainly was not very far from the truth.

203. Not in Sympathy with Lutheran Champions

When Westphal, in 1552, pointed out the Calvinistic menace and sounded the tocsin, loyal Lutherans everywhere enlisted in the controversy to defend Luther's doctrine concerning the real presence and the divine majesty of Christ's human nature. But Melanchthon again utterly failed the Lutheran Church both as a leader and a private. For although Lutheranism in this controversy was fighting for its very existence, Master Philip remained silent, non-committal, neutral. Viewed in the light of the conditions then prevailing, it was impossible to construe this attitude as pro-Lutheran. Moreover, whenever and wherever Melanchthon, in his letters and opinions written during this controversy, did show his colors to some extent, it was but too apparent that his mind and heart was with the enemies rather than with the champions of Lutheranism. For while his letters abound with flings and thrusts against the men who defended the doctrines of the sacramental union and the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, he led Calvin and his adherents to believe that he was in sympathy with them and their cause.

Melanchthon's animosity ran high not only against such extremists as Saliger (Beatus) and Fredeland (both were deposed in Luebeck 1568 and Saliger again in Rostock 1569) who taught that in virtue of the consecration before the use (ante usum) bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, denouncing all who denied this as Sacramentarians (Gieseler 3, 2, 257), but also against all those who faithfully adhered to, and defended, Luther's phraseology concerning the Lord's Supper. He rejected the teaching of Westphal and the Hamburg ministers, according to which in the Lord's Supper, the bread is properly called the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ, and stigmatized their doctrine as "bread-worship, artolatreia." (C. R. 8, 362. 660. 791; 9, 470. 962.)

In a similar manner Melanchthon ridiculed the old Lutheran teaching of the omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature as a new and foolish doctrine. Concerning the Confession and Report of the Wuerttemberg Theologians, framed by Brenz and adopted 1559, which emphatically asserted the real presence, as well as the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature, Melanchthon remarked contemptuously in a letter to Jacob Runge, dated February 1, 1560 and in a letter to G. Cracow, dated February 3, 1560, that he could not characterize "the decree of the Wuerttemberg Fathers (Abbates Wirtebergenses) more aptly than as Hechinger Latin (Hechingense Latinum, Hechinger Latein)," i. e., as absurd and insipid teaching. (9, 1035f.; 7, 780. 884.)

204. Melanchthon Claimed by Calvin

In 1554 Nicholas Gallus of Regensburg republished, with a preface of his own, Philip Melanchthon's Opinions of Some Ancient Writers Concerning the Lord's Supper. The timely reappearance of this book, which Melanchthon, in 1530, had directed against the Zwinglians, was most embarrassing to him as well as to his friend Calvin. The latter, therefore, now urged him to break his silence and come out openly against his public assailants. But Melanchthon did not consider it expedient to comply with this request. Privately, however, he answered, October 14, 1554: "As regards your admonition in your last letter that I repress the ignorant clamors of those who renew the strife concerning the bread-worship, know that some of them carry on this disputation out of hatred toward me in order to have a plausible reason for oppressing me. Quod me hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui renovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam praecipue odio mei eam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me opprimendum." (8, 362.)

Fully persuaded that he was in complete doctrinal agreement with his Wittenberg friend on the controverted questions, Calvin finally, in his Last Admonition (Ultima Admonitio) to Westphal, 1557, publicly claimed Melanchthon as his ally, and implored him to give public testimony "that they [the Calvinists and Zwinglians] teach nothing foreign to the Augsburg Confession, nihil alienum nos tradere a Confessione Augustana." "I confirm," Calvin here declared, "that in this cause [concerning the Lord's Supper] Philip can no more be torn from me than from his own bowels. Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum quam a propriis visceribus in hoc causa posse divelli." (C. R. 37 [Calvini Opp. 9], 148. 149. 193. 466; Gieseler 3, 2, 219, Tschackert, 536.) Melanchthon, however, continued to preserve his sphinxlike silence, which indeed declared as loud as words could have done that he favored the Calvinists, and was opposed to those who defended Luther's doctrine. To Mordeisen he wrote, November 15, 1557: "If you will permit me to live at a different place, I shall reply, both truthfully and earnestly to these unlearned sycophants, and say things that are useful to the Church." (C. R. 9, 374.)

After the death of Melanchthon, Calvin wrote in his Dilucida Explicatio against Hesshusius, 1561: "O Philip Melanchthon! For it is to you that I appeal, who art living with Christ in the presence of God and there waiting for us until we shall be assembled with you into blessed rest. A hundred times you have said, when, fatigued with labor and overwhelmed with cares, you, as an intimate friend, familiarly laid your head upon my breast: Would to God I might die on this bosom! But afterwards I have wished a thousand times that we might be granted to be together. You would certainly have been more courageous to engage in battle and stronger to despise envy, and disregard false accusations. In this way, too, the wickedness of many would have been restrained whose audacity to revile grew from your pliability, as they called it. O Philippe Melanchthon! Te enim appello, qui apud Deum cum Christo vivis, nosque illic exspectas, donec tecum in beatam quietem colligamur. Dixisti centies, quum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caput familiariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu! Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus. Certe animosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina et ad spernendam invidiam falsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quoque modo cohibita fuisset multorum improbitos, quibus ex tua mollitie, quam vocabant, crevit insultandi audacia." (C. R. 37 [Calvini Opp. 9], 461f.) It was not Melanchthon, but Westphal, who disputed Calvin's claim by publishing (1557) extracts from Melanchthon's former writings under the title: Clarissimi Viri Ph. Melanchthonis Sententia de Coena Domini, ex scriptis eius collecta. But, alas, the voice of the later Melanchthon was not that of the former!

205. Advising the Crypto-Calvinists

In various other ways Melanchthon showed his impatience with the defenders of Luther's doctrine and his sympathy with their Calvinistic opponents. When Timann of Bremen, who sided with Westphal, opposed Hardenberg, a secret, but decided Calvinist, Melanchthon admonished the latter not to rush into a conflict with his colleagues, but to dissimulate. He says in a letter of April 23, 1556: "Te autem oro, ne properes ad certamen cum collegis. Oro etiam, ut multa dissimules." (C. R. 8, 736.) Another letter (May 9, 1557), in which he advises Hardenberg how to proceed against his opponents, begins as follows: "Reverend Sir and Dear Brother. As you see, not only the controversy, but also the madness (rabies) of the writers who establish the bread-worship is growing." (9, 154.) He meant theologians who, like Timann and Westphal, defended Luther's doctrine that in the Lord's Supper the bread is truly the body of Christ and the wine truly the blood of Christ and that Christ is truly present also according to His human nature. Again, when at Heidelberg, in 1569, Hesshusius refused to acknowledge the Calvinist Klebitz (who had publicly defended the Reformed doctrine) as his assistant in the distribution of the Lord's Supper, and Elector Frederick III, the patron of the Crypto-Calvinists, who soon after joined the Reformed Church, demanded that Hesshusius come to an agreement with Klebitz, and finally deposed the former and dismissed the latter, Melanchthon approved of the unionistic methods of the Elector, and prepared ambiguous formulas to satisfy both parties.

In the Opinion requested by the Elector, dated November 1, 1559, Melanchthon said: "To answer is not difficult, but dangerous… Therefore I approve of the measure of the illustrious Elector, commanding silence to the disputants on both sides [Hesshusius and the Calvinist Klebitz], lest dissension occur in the weak church… The contentious men having been removed, it will be profitable that the rest agree on one form of words. It would be best in this controversy to retain the words of Paul: 'The bread which we break is the communion (koinonia) of Christ.' Much ought to be said concerning the fruit of the Supper to invite men to love this pledge and to use it frequently. And the word 'communion' must be explained: Paul does not say that the nature of the bread is changed, as the Papists say; He does not say, as those of Bremen do, that the bread is the substantial body of Christ; he does not say that the bread is the true body of Christ, as Hesshusius does; but that it is the communion, i. e., that by which the union occurs (consociatio fit) with the body of Christ, which occurs in the use, and certainly not without thinking, as when mice gnaw the bread… The Son of God is present in the ministry of the Gospel, and there He is certainly efficacious in the believers, and He is present not on account of the bread, but on account of man, as He says, 'Abide in Me and I in you,' Again: 'I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,' And in these true consolations He makes us members of His, and testifies that He will raise our bodies. Thus the ancients explain the Lord's Supper." (C. R. 9, 961.) No doubt, Calvin, too, would readily have subscribed to these ambiguous and indefinite statements. C. P. Krauth pertinently remarks: "Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in the disputed cases, this much is certain, that they practically operated as if the worse sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was not diminished, but aggravated, by their obscurity and double meaning. They did the work of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candid error might." (Cons. Ref., 291.)