The puzzle is not so much the mutual attraction of two very different tempers, but the entry by, and reception of, Melanchthon into the headquarters of the Reformation; we are not concerned with the dramatic narrative of ‘how they got on with each other’ during the thirty years of their common residence in Wittenberg, but with the riddle of how their doctrines could ‘mix’; with the astonishing fact that ever since they figure as joint partners of the firm ‘Luther and Melanchthon’ in such a way as none other of Luther's many colleagues could claim to be associated with him (the only conceivable comparison would be ‘Luther and Calvin’). It remains to be seen whether the question which is obviously of modern origin will ever be properly answered; all we can try here is to find out how far it was felt to be a problem at the time of the Reformation, and to search what little material we have for hints in that direction.

We have the statement of a faithful Melanchthonian, Paul Eber, maintaining against the critics who ‘equate Luther with gold, and much prefer this to Melanchthon's silver … ; we know that Philippus, together with, and after Luther has produced optima fide integrum corpus doctrinae, bona et perspicua methodo et studio’ ([Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bredschneider, hereafter referred to as] CR, 9, 966). On the other hand, there is a man like the Chancellor Brück denouncing in a letter to the elector prince of Saxony the heresies which Melanchthon himself had concealed from Luther: ‘Doctor Martinus says and confesses, he had never thought that Philippus was still so deeply involved in the “phantasies” … I think there is no harm in Martinus still pressing on and giving a serious hearty talk to Philippus’ (CR, 3, 427). The prince himself, no wonder, is so seriously worried by the reports of the ‘Zweyung’ between Luther and Melanchthon¹ that he goes so far as to contemplate the closing of Wittenberg University, which would appear the lesser evil as compared with an open split in the faculty (CR, 3, 365 sqq.); at the same time he exerts the utmost pressure to prevent Luther from directly mentioning Melanchthon in his forthcoming pamphlet against the ‘sacramentarians’: ‘Therefore it is our desire, and we want him to take our well-meant advice, that he should refrain from mentioning Philippus by name in his book … it is easy to see how the adversaries would rejoice over that and into what bad report the word of God would be brought’ (CR, 5, 746 sq.). These three voices represent the views taken by the three parties in the Church struggles after Luther's death (the ‘Philippists’, the ‘Gnesiolutherans’ and the mediating statesmen) and echoed in all the subsequent literature on our subject.²

But what is the opinion of Luther and Melanchthon themselves? Consulting Luther's table-talks first, we find overwhelming evidence for the personal affection in which Melanchthon is held; the famous story that Luther prayed him back from death in a grave illness (WA Ti, 5, 5565, 5407) is of symbolic significance. So he won him over to Wittenberg in his youth and kept him by his spell; yet the impression which we are given is as if Luther was entirely in Melanchthon's debt: we learn, for example, ‘that D. Philippus had compelled him to translate the New Testament into German’ (1, 961). The laudation of the great friend is not infrequently expressed in superlative terms: ‘noster Philippus Melanchthon, homo admirabilis, imo paene nihil habens, quod non supra hominem sit … Philippus, quem non secus habeo ac me ipsum, excepta eruditione ac integritate vitae, qua me pudefacit, nedum superat’ (Letters, ed. De Wette, i, 197; ii, 407). It sounds as if Luther wanted us to picture himself as the barbarous peasant vis-à-vis the learned professor—which, incidentally, leads most people to make the wrong guess when comparing their two handwritings! His admiration for Melanchthon's writings is almost unqualified, whether it is the Dialectica,³ the commentaries,⁴ the Confessio Augustana⁵ and the Apologia,⁶ or, above all, the Loci Communes which Luther would like to translate himself (De Wette, ii, 557) and which he does not hesitate to classify as the norm for all scripture reading.⁷ ‘Therefore who nowadays wants to be a theologian, has many advantages. First, he has the Bible made so plain that he can read it without any difficulty. Then he can read the Loci Communes; he should read them well and diligently so as to have them firmly in his head. If he has these two things, he is a theologian immune from the devil and all heretics, and the whole of theology lies open to him. … You find no book among all his books which comprises the sum of religion or the whole of theology as well as the Loci. All the Fathers and Commentators are just as nothing compared with that. Non est melior liber post scripturam sanctam quam ipsius loci communes’ (WA Ti, 5, 5511; cf. 5647, 5787, 5827, 6439, 6458).

Luther's only word of regret is about Melanchthon's habit of dedicating his books to the potentates in State and Church, as e.g. to Henry VIII (the 1535 edition of the Loci, cf. CR, 2, 920) and Albrecht von Mainz (the 1532 commentary on Romans, cf. CR, 2, 611): ‘I regret that Magister Philippus has dedicated his best prefaces to the naughtiest boys’ (WA Ti, 4, 4699). But at the same time he defends him passionately from the charge of corruptibility in connection with a royal donation received from England: ‘Et multa expendit in suos et alienos. Distribuit eam pecuniam. Et dignus esset, cui regnum donaretur, tantus vir et tam bene meritus de Romano imperio et ecclesia in tota Germania et aliis regionibus!’ (4, 4957). The friend in his eyes is ‘nimis modestus’ (4, 4577; cf. 5, 5781): ‘No one can repay his labour. He must live in the alms house. Forsitan valeat ad promovendum evangelium. Verecundus est. God help him! He shall go to heaven, there he will be well rewarded; the world shall not pay for his labour and work’ (2, 1545). To the question of a sceptic, ‘si Philippus esset episcopus Saltzburgensis, an ita liberalis maneret?’, Luther replies firmly: ‘Maxime! Nam habet agnitionem Christi Jesu’ (4, 4985).

Convinced of the essential soundness on the part of Melanchthon, Luther can afford to smile about some of his ‘hobbies’, such as astrology: ‘M. Ph. holds fast to it, but has never been able to convince me’ (1, 855). ‘Neither Philippus nor anybody else will ever persuade me to believe that it is a science. … Illa tota res est contra philosophiam’ (5, 6250)—a statement no less illuminating than the test of the two handwritings! The scholar in Luther insists: ‘Ego dixi: Foris nihil habent argumenti pro astrologia nisi autoritatem Philippi. Tum Doctor: Ego saepe confutavi Philippum ita evidenter, ut diceret: Haec quidem vis est! Et concessit esse scientiam, sed quam ipsi non teneant. Quare ego sum contentus, si non tenent eam artem, so I allow him to play with it … their art is all rubbish’ (4, 5013). The believer is even more outspoken: ‘Ego puto, quod Philippus astrologica tractat, sicut ego bibo ein starcken trunck birs, quando habeo graves cogitationes’ (1, 17). But the choice of the tonic by the two men is not irrelevant. Of course what is true of astrology is equally true of dreams: ‘Luther praised that dream of Philippus and said he had the gift of dreams, but I, he added, do not attribute any weight to it. I do not care to have dreams and visions. Certiora habeo, verbum Dei’ (4, 4444 b; cf. 5, 5494). Should this be the root of the problem, that the ‘solum verbum’ was not certain enough for Melanchthon?

But Luther continues to speak about a mere diversity of gifts (‘varia dona’, 1, 80), and to describe the difference in terms of biblical analogies. ‘Ego credo Paulum fuisse personam contemptibilem, a poor, thin, little man such as Philippus’ (2, 1245) must have sounded very flattering to Melanchthon, but fails to impress us. Another comparison is surely nearer the mark: ‘I am Isaiah, Philippus is Jeremiah; he always worried that he scolded too much, just like Philippus!’ (1, 887)—though again the similarity between Philippus and Jeremiah can hardly be pressed beyond this one point! More obvious is the parallel drawn from Acts xv: ‘Then they talked about the very different minds of Luther and Melanchthon who had yet achieved the maximum of concord. Luther replied: in the Acts of the Apostles you have this picture: James denotes Philippus who with his modesty would gladly have retained the law; Peter signifies myself who brought it to fall. Why do you worry? Philippus proceeds in charity, and I in faith. Philippus suffers himself to be eaten up, I eat up everything and spare nobody. Et ita Deus in diversis operatur idem’ (4, 4577). Here we touch upon a fundamental issue to which we shall have to come back: ‘Multi valde sudant, ut concordent Jacobum cum Paulo, velut etiam Philippus in Apologia, sed non serio. Pugnantia sunt: fides iustificat—fides non iustificat. Whoever can rhyme these two, him will I decorate with my doctor's cap and let him call me a fool’ (3, 3292). Again, the different doctrinal emphasis—to put it cautiously—corresponds to the divergence in the fields of action: ‘Diversum facit Philippus. Is meis negotiis non movetur, sed movent eum illa grandia reipublicae et religionis. Me privata tantum premunt. Sic sunt varia dona’ (1, 80).⁸

Thus a peculiar modus agendi is necessitated on which Luther makes some further observations. It occurs only once that he has to blame Melanchthon for too much rigidity, and that is, significantly enough, in his capacity as examiner.⁹ In all other respects ‘de Philippo omnium judicium hoc est: si peccat, tunc lenitate peccat. He is too easily taken in. His little scholarly instruments are not good enough; the trunks demand an axe’ (5, 6443). As it fell upon Melanchthon to represent the Protestant cause in nearly all official negotiations, this became of crucial importance. Luther's criticism of the Augustana, ‘I cannot tread so softly’ (De Wette, iv, 17) is well known. It had to be repeated on more than one occasion. When he tarried at the Hagenau convent in 1540, Luther remarked: ‘Philippus vult mori in hac synodo et fecit versum. Sed nostrum Paternoster erit fortius cogitationibus Philippi’ (4, 5058; cf. 5062, 5096, 5091, 5054). Eventually Melanchthon seemed to be converted to Luther's methods: ‘Ph. has finally fallen foul of the Papists. For a while he wanted to deal with the case according to his equity; now he sees that nothing will help with these scoundrels’ (4, 4909). But Luther's reflection is based upon something more than the practical success when he turns to Melanchthon's manner of polemics: ‘Philippus, too, pricks, but with needles only; the pricks hurt and are hard to heal; but I stab with boars' spears’ (1, 348). Long after Luther's death experience confirmed his suspicion ‘that Philippus too much indulges in affections and bears the cross more impatiently than becomes a disciple, or rather, such a master of so many’ (De Wette, ii, 29; see below, pp. 66, 79).

Leaving aside these wider moral and political implications, we must try to understand what it means that Luther and Melanchthon talk in two different languages. The fact at least was realized by both. ‘In tractatione scripturae ego vehementior sum quam Philippus, etsi in libello de ecclesia (1539) acrior fuit. Sententia eius libri est vehemens, sed verba videntur mihi non esse similia rebus; sed non intelligo vim Latini sermonis’ (WA Ti, 4, 5054). But we are faced not with the simple question of the ‘vis Latini sermonis’,¹⁰ but with the fundamental problem whether in reality ‘verba videntur non esse similia rebus’. Is it only the language which separates Melanchthon from Luther or does he say something altogether different? Luther's summary reply seems to leave no doubt and is striking both in matter and in form: ‘Res et verba Philippus; verba sine re Erasmus; res sine verbis Lutherus; nec res nec verba Carolostadius’ (3, 3619). And the final verdict runs: ‘Ego hoc didici experientia: Quotquot M. Philippo et mihi adversati sunt e nostris, exciderunt a fide’ (4, 4946; cf. 5, 5788). The solidarity with Melanchthon is so firmly established that his dissent from Amsdorf and Agricola can be dismissed in the uncommonly irenic phrase: ‘I do not think much of this strife of words, particularly among the people’ (De Wette, iii, 215); that the Elector's clemency is pleaded for Philippus in a moment of grave mismanagement;¹¹ that even in the sacramental dispute the other side is rebuked for its impertinent claim ‘se cum Philippo et Luthero sentire’ (WA Ti, 3, 3231), as if there were but one mind and one mouth to consider. However inconspicuous and inconsistent may have been the part which the virtue of tolerance played in Luther's life, in the case of Melanchthon he acted literally and thoroughly according to his words: ‘Ego soleo dissimulare et celare, quantum possum, ubi aliqui nostrum vere dissentiunt a nobis’ (De Wette, ii, 522).¹² The only possible explanation for that course must be sought in an amazing capacity to read his own ‘res’ into and behind Melanchthon's ‘verba’. Was his trust justified? Was he right in his optimism: ‘What do we lack, Philippus, I, Doctor Jonas, Major? Are we not getting on well?’ (WA Ti, 5, 5476).¹³ Or had he any sinister forebodings when he once asked: ‘How is it that he is the worst deceiver whom one had trusted most?’ and when Melanchthon answered: ‘Optime scribit Xenophon: facis id, quod est facillimum, amico iniuriam …’ (4, 3938). In another, more harmless and objective, table-talk the tragedy of the second generation is well described: ‘But Phil. said to Luther: My dear Doctor, there are godly people who die in the knowledge of Christ, and particularly young people; for the older we become, the more foolish we are. The young folk stick simply to the articles of the Christian faith; as they have learnt them, so they believe them; but when we grow old, we begin to dispute, want to be clever, while we are the greatest fools’ (5, 5563). That is the Reformation itself in the process of ‘growing old’—and so we come to look at our problem with the eyes of Melanchthon.

The picture, for all its parallels, is different from the outset. Here, too, we have the symbolic incident of Melanchthon watching a serious illness of Luther, yet, notwithstanding Luther's emphatic tribute, ‘Ph. me uno verbo erigit’ (CR, 1, 360), he is not powerful enough to pray him back from death, but, ‘when he looked at him dissolved into tears’ (WA Ti, 3, 3543). There is a sigh of relief in his exclamation: ‘so far, thank God, Martinus breathes, so pray that he may go on breathing, ille unicus θεολόγου διδαsκαλίας vindex’ (CR, 1, 208)—and the corresponding sigh of despair after Luther's death when a new and trying era of the Church is dawning (cf. 11, 783 ff.: ‘De Luthero et aetatibus ecclesiae’). ‘I would die rather than be separated from this man; nothing more trist could happen than to have to do without Martinus’ (1, 160, 269) is the refrain of many testimonies which show a genuine sense of dependence upon ‘hoc Hercule nostro’ (1, 282). It is noteworthy that of all comparisons this comes first to Melanchthon's mind; he can never escape the impression of overpowering physical and spiritual strength. ‘Martinus seems to me to be driven by a spirit … impossible for me not to fall in love with him’ (1, 269, 96); but these almost naïve understatements soon give way to the flourish of his Latin rhetoric: ‘ne ille opprimatur, vir unus, quem ego ausim et vere non modo omnibus huius aetatis, sed omnibus omnium seculorum, omnium temporum vel Augustinis, vel Hieronymis, vel Nazianzenis praeferre’ (1, 270). Solon, Themistocles, Scipio and Augustus, however great their empires, are far inferior to ‘nostris ducibus Jesaia, Baptista, Paulo, Augustino, Luthero’ (11, 728). And the praise of the man is the praise of his doctrine. ‘For when we study Luther, we deal with the cause of true theology and Christian doctrine, which he, in the spirit of Elijah, has plainly asserted; I have never had any doubt whatsoever about Luther's integrity or the truth of his doctrine’ (1, 287, 598); yes, even ‘you grieve the Holy Spirit, not Luther, when you take offence at this’ (1, 320; cf. 1002). All this appears to be strictly in line with the later orthodoxy of Wittenberg: ‘God's Word and Luther's doctrine shall never pass away’,¹⁴ and with the tendency which leads certain dogmatics to the conception of a ‘Locus de Vocatione Lutheri’.

Yet Melanchthon gives himself away when in the course of his necrologies on Luther he makes the confession: ‘Cumque decesserit Lutherus ἐν εὐφημίᾳ bonos et amantes Deum etiam de viro tanto, qui certe aliquam doctrinae celestis partem illustravit, decet εὔφημα dicere’ (CR, 6, 80). Thus the adherence to the master is qualified in two important ways. First, ‘decet εὔφημα dicere’—in marked contrast to Luther's own deplorable manner of speaking. ‘Nunquam ita amavi Lutherum, ut veluti instruxerim eius in disputatione vehementiam’ (1, 946). The disputations and pamphlets themselves become a nightmare to him; more than once he unburdens his heart in letters to Camerarius, his ‘intimus’: ‘you are quite right in guessing that these harsh addresses (sc. Lutheri dissidia cum Iurisconsultis de clandestinis sponsalibus) are a cause of great grievance to me. Many things trouble me. What is the use of it all to the people? How very inopportune is the moment, when big decisions seem to be pending’ (5, 310 sq.). We seem to hear the gentle voice of a British critic when we read: ‘this cause could be pleaded in a more civil way’ (1, 1023). While defending Luther's superiority against a popular overestimate of Erasmus,¹⁵ he cannot help holding, like the latter, Luther's polemics responsible for the drive of many people into the opposite camp:¹⁶ and both in the sacramental issue and in the conflict ‘de libero arbitrio’ Melanchthon himself must vote for appeasement.¹⁷ ‘How this conflicts with your statement, I cannot see even now’ (3, 68 sq.) is one of his typical sentences written to Erasmus, with whom he maintained an unbroken correspondence.

The second qualification is that Luther ‘certe aliquam doctrinae celestis partem illustravit’, and again Melanchthon's friendship with Erasmus is a striking reminder of that. ‘I have, during and after Luther's lifetime, rejected the Stoic and Manichean “deliria”, presented by Luther and others, that all works, good and evil, in all men, good and evil, had to come about by necessity. It is obvious that such phrases are against the word of God, harmful to all discipline, and blasphemous’ (9, 766; similarly 8, 916). This criticism deserves attention, not so much because of its particular theme but because of its general principle. ‘God's Word’ and ‘Luther's doctrine’ are not simply identical; the latter is judged by the former. Now the laudations of Luther, without losing their weight and sincerity, must be viewed in a different light: ‘I should not want you to favour Luther unless it is because you feel bound to favour the truth of the Gospel … while Montanus wanted people to believe him, Luther wanted not himself, but scripture in its evidence and perspicuity to be believed’ (1, 287, 406); ‘volebat enim Lutherus non detinere (nos) in suis scriptis, sed ad fontes deducere omnium mentes; ipsam vocem Dei audire nos voluit’ (6, 170). Of course this is precisely what Luther himself had said and how he wanted to be understood; and it is also the criterion of Lutheranism as a whole, established in the preface to the Formula Concordiae.¹⁸ But it is significant that Melanchthon should be the first to apply the criterion in terms of a censure on parts of Luther's own writings.

He did not do it with an easy mind. ‘Non sum natura pιλόνεικος; I am a quiet bird’ (6, 880; 5, 474). But Luther, he thought, fell under that ominous category of the pιλόνεικος, and he, Melanchthon, felt very much his victim. ‘I have also borne the almost shameful servitude, since Luther often served his nature (in which there was no small pιλονεικία) rather than what was good for his own person or the community’ (6, 880) is an outburst two years after Luther's death which no biographer of Melanchthon could fail to register. It was, however, not different while Luther was alive. ‘Πολλάκις sημαίνει τὴν παλαιὰν ὀργήν’ (3, 595); ‘omissis igitur a μετεχειρίȝοντο nunc βροντaται καὶ ἀsτράπτεται καθ’ ἑτέρων τινῶν, interdum me quoque petendo’ (5, 462). And Cruciger confirms his suspicions: ‘Luther calls the mediators Erasmians, no doubt aiming at us, and most of all at Philippus’ (3, 397). But worst of all was the agitation of the anti-Philippist party which began early and grew intolerable in his last lonely years. ‘Amsdorf has written to Luther to say that he was nursing a snake in his bosom, denoting myself: I leave out the rest’ (3, 503). The charges were both moral and doctrinal. ‘Some suspect me of taking favours from the mighty … and to have been corrupted with money by Iulius, the Bishop of Naumburg’ (5, 332; 7, 352); against which we remember Luther's fervent defence of Melanchthon (see above, p. xviii). More heavily than these ‘falsissimae calumniae certorum sycophantarum’ weighs the charge against the Augsburg Confession and Apologia: ‘Dicor nimium laudare bona opera’ (5, 754). The reply is: ‘Utinam satis laudarem!’ Although Melanchthon stoically quotes the story of Flavianus Antiochenus, who, accused before Theodosius, declared that he would suffer reproof of his doctrine or morals, but give up the fight when ‘de dignitate καὶ περὶ προεδρίας est certamen’ (3, 459), the atmosphere of Wittenberg made it hard enough for him to remain calm. ‘Noster Cyzizensis,’ writes Cruciger about Amsdorf, ‘ut est rigidus, etiam τὸν ἡμέτερον διδάsκαλον (Lutherum) inflammavit. … Itaque constituit alter (Melanchthon), se potius recta pedibus egressurum esse urbem, quam sic assentiatur aut pugnet cum διδαsκάλῳ’ (5, 477; cf. 484). The question of emigration arose more than once: ‘Which of us has a safe abode? For about fifteen years I have daily expected expulsion, and am still expecting it’ (6, 860).

As the date of the fifteen years indicates, the position was all the more difficult since Luther was no longer there; in fact, it was ultimately the bond with him which held Melanchthon in Wittenberg.¹⁹ This implied not only mutual loyalty and support in the sphere of personal relations, but an emphatic claim by Melanchthon to be the true and genuine representative of the Lutheran tradition: ‘I have always maintained the contents of the Commentarius Inspectionis Ecclesiarum to be in complete accordance with Luther's doctrine … si quis Lutherum recantare aliquid in meo opere iudicat, is multipliciter insanit. Si quid scriptum est, quod videtur pugnare cum Lutheri doctrina, id ad me, non ad Lutherum pertinet’ (1, 898). The real divergences are about some Adiaphora;²⁰ here Melanchthon feels free to make his own comments on ‘aliquam doctrinae celestis partem’, and here Luther seems to have agreed to disagree. ‘Neither does Luther seem to bear us any hostility. Yesterday he spoke very amiably about these controversies with me … when I pointed out what a tragic spectacle it would be to see us fight with one another like the Cadmean brothers. You know that I speak less harshly about predestination, free will, necessity of obedience, and original sin. In all these matters as such, Luther, I know, thinks as I do, but the uneducated too much prefer some of his more vehement phrases, the point of which they do not understand. I do not think it is for me to fight them; they may use their own judgment. Mihi tamen concedant homini Peripatetico, et amanti mediocritatem, minus Stoice alicubi loqui. That is the sum of the matter’ (CR, 3, 383). It is indeed the ‘summa negotii’ because it shows clearly that Melanchthon's ‘contribution’ to Lutheranism is both to complete and to polish what Luther said; the key lies in the references to the ‘homo peripateticus’ and to the ‘modus dicendi’: ‘scis me quaedam minus horride dicere’; thus the defects of Luther's pιλονεικία are overcome. The next passage makes the same vital point in still more positive terms: ‘When we in our first visitation of the churches found so many conflicting voices among the uneducated about many points, I drew up a summa doctrinae in one volume which Luther had delivered in various volumes of commentaries and addresses; et quaesivi genus verborum, quo ad proprietatem, quae ad perspicuitatem et concordiam utilis est, discentes assuefierent, ac semper omnia scripta iudicio Ecclesiae nostrae et ipsius Lutheri permisi: de multis quaestionibus etiam diserte sciscitatus sum Lutherum, quid sentiret, ac multi pagellarum illarum exempla adhuc habent’ (7, 479). In other words, Melanchthon describes his work as the quest for a new ‘genus verborum’ which is apt to summarize and harmonize the doctrines of the Reformation; his task, in succession to Luther, is to restate the case in the proper language.

In a letter from which we quoted [earlier], he uses the very distinction between ‘res et verba’ and ‘res sine verbis’ which we have heard from Luther.²¹ ‘Lenitas’ was, as we have seen, Luther's only charge against him. So we are again left with the question whether or not they both said the same thing in different words. ‘Rem ipsam semper retinui’ (7, 756 sq.) was Melanchthon's defence in an argument about the ‘sola fide’. But that he is on the defence all the time appears to be the decisive factor in his relation to Luther. It lends colour to all his utterances, and it places them in marked contrast to the corresponding words of Luther about Melanchthon. A scene reported in the table-talks may serve as illustration. ‘D. Caspar (Cruciger) said to Philippus that he could hardly bear his presence in his lectures. Then said Luther: Neither am I very keen to have him in my lectures, but I cross myself and think: Philippus, Jonas, Pommer²² are not in here, and I imagine that no wiser man stands on the cathedra than myself’ (WA Ti, 3, 2954 b). Luther is so sure of his teaching that he can safely ignore the presence of his learned colleague, and again, he is so sure of Melanchthon that he can safely leave it to him what he makes of the lecture: ‘Philippus non est docendus, nec ego propter illum doceo aut lego’ (WA Ti, 4, 5047). Melanchthon's position is just the reverse. One could not imagine that he would have happily lectured in front of Luther. He would have felt that he had to prove his orthodoxy—as he repeatedly admits: ‘semper omnia scripta iudicio Ecclesiae nostrae et ipsius Lutheri permisi’—and should Luther have taken notes, Melanchthon would most surely have corrected them. Certainty on his side is lacking in the same measure in which it abounds with Luther; he tests where Luther trusts; he takes control of the depositum fidei which Luther generously leaves to him, and so he comes to determine the future of Lutheranism. The change of language is therefore of the most far-reaching psychological and theological importance; and it is from this direction that the puzzle ‘Luther and Melanchthon’ which we leave now will have to be approached for its solution.

Notes

1. ‘If discord should grow between Lutherus and Philippus, God help us! What would come of it, how would the Papists glory and say: a kingdom divided against itself must perish. Also, no doubt, many Christian folk would take offence and stumble, even fall altogether away from the Gospel’ (CR, 5, 502).

2. It may be as well here to introduce the main figures of the inter-Lutheran controversies whose names, not often mentioned outside Germany, will frequently occur on the following pages. On Melanchthon's side we find Caspar Cruciger (Wittenberg; collaborator in Luther's translation of the Bible; his son succeeded Melanchthon as Professor); Paul Eber (Professor, General-superintendent and Hymn-writer in Wittenberg); Georg Major (Magdeburg, Wittenberg, Eisleben; his statement that good works are necessary to salvation caused the so-called Majorist dispute). The leaders of the ‘Gnesiolutherans’ are Nikolaus von Amsdorf, the first Lutheran Bishop (of Naumburg; who countered Major's statement by declaring good works to be harmful to salvation), and Matthias Flacius (Magdeburg and Jena; the first great Church historian of Lutheranism, author of the Magdeburger Zenturionen). Both oppose Melanchthon sharply in his attempts to compromise with Rome by accepting, in the so-called ‘Interim’ of Leipzig, a number of constitutional and ceremonial matters as non-essential (‘Adiaphora’; ‘adiaphorist’ dispute). But they side with him against Andreas Osiander (Nürnberg and Königsberg, an uncle of Cranmer's wife) in defending ‘imputed’ against ‘inherent’ righteousness. Johann Brenz, the reformer of Württemberg, while opposing the ‘Interim’, tries to save Osiander from misinterpretation. Justus Jonas (Wittenberg, Halle, etc.; preached Luther's funeral sermon), the translator of Melanchthon's Loci and Apologia, belongs, in the ‘Interim’ controversy, to the opposite camp. Johann Agricola (Eisleben, Wittenberg and Berlin) is known for the three ‘antinomian’ disputations in which Luther defends Melanchthon against him and forces him to recant. Martin Bucer needs no introduction to Cambridge.

3. ‘Philippus fecit, quod nullus fecit in mille annis in dialectica. … Brevitatem et perspicuitatem I could not combine as well as Philippus. … Philippus superat omnes Graecos et Latinos in dialectica’, WA Ti, 2, 1545, 1649, 2300.

4. Particularly on Romans and Colossians: WA Ti, 1, 369; 4, 5007; 5, 5511.

5. WA Ti, 2, 1481; De Wette, iv, 17.

6. ‘Apologia Philippi praestat omnibus doctoribus ecclesiae, etiam ipso Augustino’, WA Ti, 1, 252.

7. ‘Ideo biblia sacra legenda iuxta locos communes Phil. Melanchthonis’, WA Ti, 5, 6009; cf. 3, 3589, 3695.

8. Cf. 3, 3809: ‘L. negabat se esse administratorem.’

9. ‘Therefore I am pleased when the young people and students produce arguments, however good or bad they might be, and I dislike Philippus examining so strictly and sharply as to rush over the poor fellows; one must climb stairs step by step, nobody can be at once on top’, 4, 4056.

10. In another passage Luther makes the distinction: ‘Tu rhetor es scribendo, non dicendo … sed quae scripseram, Philippo non placebant’ (2, 2068).

11. ‘For they have maintained our dear Confession and did abide firmly by it, even if everything else went wrong’ (De Wette, v, 357).

12. Melanchthon, on the other hand, had his moments when he could say: ‘non soleo dissimulare, quid de controversia illa sentiam’ (CR, 1, 946)!

13. Cf. Luther's remarks on the future of the Wittenberg faculty, ibid. 5, 5423; 4, 5126.

14. ‘Gottes Wort und Luthers Lehr vergehen nun und nimmermehr.’ On the origin of the famous formula see O. Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, ii, 356, note 3; and R. Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte, iv, part ii, p. 435.

15. ‘Quae fortasse longe graviores tumultus aliquando excitatura fuerant, nisi Lutherus exortus esset.’

16. ‘Tota illa tragoedia περὶ δείπνου κυριακοῦ ab ipso nata videri potest’ (1, 1083); Erasmus's words.

17. Melanchthon to Erasmus: ‘De scriptis contra te hic editis quod fuerit meum iudicium, eo nihil hic dico, quia non solum propter privata officia, sed etiam propterea displicuerunt, quia tanta scripta sunt inutilia reipublicae. Neque hoc iudicium meum dissimulavi unquam’ (3, 69).

18. Cf. Symbolische Bücher der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche, ed. J. T. Müller, and the corresponding preamble of the Barmen Declaration of the Confessional Church.

19. Cf. F. Galle, Melanchthon, Versuch einer Charakteristik Melanchthons als Theologen, Halle, 1845, p. 146, n. 2.

20. See above, p. xvi. ‘De Adiaphoris ideo minus contendimus, quia alia maiora certamina sustinemus. … Obsecro te, concordiam inter vos tueamur, nec propter Adiaphora inter nos ipsi dimicemus’, letter to Hardenberg, CR, 7, 357; cf. ibid. 9, 763 sq.: ‘Bedenken auf das Weimarer Confutationsbuch.’

21. ‘Tantum me hoc cavisse, ut sine acerbitate verborum, res nudae proponerentur. Multae mihi causae fuerunt eius lenitatis … mihi magis fuit spectandum, quid Deo placeret, quam quando sycophantas illos mihi placarem, a quibus nunc ut hereticus, ut fanaticus traducor. Hanc meam epistolam potes exhibere quibus velis. … Et Lutherus mihi optimus testis est, me semper optasse in hac tota dissensione, ut summa lenitate nostri omnes uterentur’ (CR, 1, 898).

22. ‘Doctor Pommer’ (Pomeranus), nickname for Bugenhagen, the chief Pastor of Wittenberg and Reformer of Denmark, in whose frequent absence Luther deputized in the pulpit of the Stadtkirche at Wittenberg.

Works Cited

Melanchthon's works have been quoted from the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bredschneider (CR); Luther's from the Weimarer Ausgabe (WA; the table-talks, Tischreden: WA Ti), in a few instances from Walch and the Erlanger Ausgabe (EA), his letters from De Wette's edition and his disputations from Drews. The Lutheran Confessions of Faith have been quoted from J. T. Müller's edition (Gütersloh, 1928); they contain, besides the three oecumenical symbols, the Augsburg Confession and Apologia, Luther's Articuli Smalcaldici (with Melanchthon's Tractatus de Potestate ac Primatu Papae), his Minor and Major Catechisms, and the Formula Concordiae.