SOURCE: Tappert, Theodore G. “Melanchthon in America.” In Luther und Melanchthon, edited by Vilmos Vajta, pp. 189-98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961.

Any attempt to trace the interpretations and the influence of Philip Melanchthon in America must take into account the fact that he did not become an object of independent scholarly investigation until the very close of the nineteenth century. It was in 1898 that the first substantial life of the reformer was published.¹ This is not to suggest that Melanchthon was wholly unknown or remained entirely unmentioned before 1898, but it means that when he was cited or appealed to this was often done to secure the support of his authority for some preconceived position. Astonishing caricatures of Melanchthon sometimes appeared, not only in such polemical Roman Catholic literature as pictured him as a secret member of the Masonic Order² but also in such Protestant literature as meant to take him seriously. The enigmatic character of Melanchthon and the ambivalent role he played in the Reformation of course contributed to the sometimes curious assessments that were made.

I

During the first half of the nineteenth century a kind of Melanchthon cult developed in America. The name of this reformer was attached to a movement. Disciples gathered about his memory and proudly called themselves “Melanchthonians.” They advocated and promoted what they took to be Melanchthon's characteristic theological and ecclesiastical stance.

To understand this revival of Melanchthonianism in America during the first half of the nineteenth century it is necessary to observe something of the situation which then existed. The dominant influence in the Lutheran Church in America during the preceding century had been that of Halle Pietism. For about two generations, from the beginning of the American Revolution in 1775 to about 1830, immigration from Europe had come to a virtual standstill. Cut off to a large extent from continuing influence from Europe, most Lutherans in America adhered to at least the outward expressions of their inherited Pietism. At the same time they were increasingly adapting themselves to the language and customs in their American environment. The consequence was that Lutheran church life took on more and more of the color of general American Protestantism. To be sure, the pattern was not uniform. Where German Reformed people were numerous, there was a tendency to accommodate Lutheran and Reformed positions and practices. Where Presbyterians, Methodists, or others were present in large numbers, Lutherans were inclined to imitate these. The fusion between an Americanized German Pietism (whether Lutheran or Reformed) and an English Puritanism modified by American revivalism (whether Presbyterian, Methodist, or other) produced the characteristic features of what came to be called “American Lutheranism.” This was the only type of Lutheranism, its adherents claimed, which would in the long run be acceptable in the New World, and a contemporary critic caustically referred to it as “a kind of mongrel Methodistic Presbyterianism,”³ while a man who had been brought up under its influence more judiciously called it an “accommodation of Lutheranism to the dominant Calvinism or Puritanism of America.“⁴

It was in such a situation that Melanchthon came to enjoy acclaim. He was hailed as the champion of a progressive spirit and as one who had been ready to adjust his opinions for the sake of overcoming the disunion of Protestant churches. “The peace-loving Philip Melanchthon,” it was said, might have brought about a union of Reformed and Lutherans at Marburg in 1529 if it had not been for Luther's obstinacy. “Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and Oekolampadius had it in their power to put an end to all controversy, for which Luther alone was especially to blame … Philip did all that he could to restore unity.”⁵

To be sure, the readiness of Melanchthon to make concessions to the right as well as to the left was acknowledged. “The circumstances under which the Augsburg Confession was composed” in 1530 “were far from being favorable to a full and free exhibition of the deliberate views of the Reformers even at that date, and fully account for some of the remnants of Romanism still found in that confession.” At Augsburg the “peace-loving Philip” had been transformed into the “fearful and trembling Melanchthon” who surrendered so much to Rome that Luther was led “to affirm what American Lutherans now maintain, that he had yielded too much to the papists in the Augsburg Confession.”⁶

The teachings and practices in which Melanchthon had yielded too much to Rome were specified. First, “the name and some of the ceremonies of the Roman mass were retained in the Augsburg Confession” (Art.XXIV). Although Luther rejected the mass entirely, “both the name and accompanying ceremonies,” yet “if the Augsburg Confession were strictly binding on us, we should be under necessity of adopting on sacramental occasions all the public ceremonies then and now usual in the Romish church in celebrating public mass.”⁷ Second, private confession and absolution were retained in the Augsburg Confession (Art. XI, XXV, XXVIII). Here it was conceded that Melanchthon agreed with Luther, but subsequently this practice was “almost universally rejected, … except by a few Old Lutherans.”⁸ Third, baptismal regeneration was a “remnant of papal superstition.” “Melanchthon, whilst he by no means indulges in the extravagant and unscriptural views of a change in the water employed in baptism, by the Deity's pervading it, etc., seems however in substance to have entertained views of the efficacy of this ordinance amounting to baptismal regeneration” (Art. II, IX).⁹ Fourth, Melanchthon, like Luther, “treats the Sabbath as a mere Jewish institution and supposes it to be totally revoked, whilst the propriety of our retaining the Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath as a day of religious worship is supposed to rest only on the agreement of the churches for the convenience of general convocation” (Art. XXVIII).¹⁰ Fifth, in the Augsburg Confession Melanchthon so worded the Lutheran teaching concerning the Lord's Supper that it admitted a Roman interpretation. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession asserted that Lutherans believed what had “heretofore been believed in the Romish church … They believed as fully as did the Romanists in receiving the real body and blood of Christ.”¹¹

What is revealing about this whole interpretation of Melanchthon is not only the criticism of some of the positions he took at Augsburg in 1530 but also the commendation of changes he made afterwards in some of his views. “Melanchthon himself,” it was pointed out, “did not regard his Confession as perfect, for he made sundry alterations in it in his successive editions.”¹² He “subsequently changed his views” and was represented as holding that “the glorified human nature of Christ is not substantially (essentially) present at all, but only influentially, efficaciously or virtually … This was probably the opinion of that distinguished ornament of the Lutheran church, Melanchthon, who rejected the doctrine of the substantial presence of the glorified human nature.”¹³ It was even regarded as Melanchthonian to hold that in the Lord's Supper communicants partake “of the emblems of his broken body and shed blood.”¹⁴ In similar fashion, it was said, Melanchthon originally supported Luther in teaching “the Augustinian view of predestination.” Luther also “entertained other views inconsistent with this. Melanchthon, who had embraced Luther's unadjusted views of doctrine, led the way in the process of harmonizing their conflicting elements by the rejection of absolute predestination.”¹⁵

It should be observed that opinions here ascribed to Melanchthon were not only based on a study of available literature on the Reformation but were also shaped in some measure by the historical situation in America during the first half of the nineteenth century. On the one hand, it was a time when, as a result of large Irish immigration, the Roman Catholic Church was for the first time making a real impact on American religious life, and Protestants reacted with a bitter anti-Catholic crusade which had political as well as social and ecclesiastical aspects. American Lutherans joined others in attacking the “multitude of doctrinal and practical corruptions” and the “dangerous principles” which were binding on Roman Catholics and “in conformity with which they may reasonably be expected to destroy the present liberties of both Protestants and Catholics.”¹⁶ On the other hand, this was a time when concern for Protestant church union, although gradually waning in some circles, was still alive among “American Lutherans.” It was therefore of interest to demonstrate that “the opinions now generally entertained in the Lutheran Church as to the nature of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper differ in no material point from those entertained by the other Protestant churches on the same subject.”¹⁷ Similarly it was asserted that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination “has long since been abandoned by the great body of the Reformed Church,” and “the principal Congregational divines of New England are also unwilling to term these decrees of God unconditional or absolute.”¹⁸ “Melanchthonian Lutheranism” thus appeared to be well adapted to reconcile divided Protestants while removing the “remnant of papal superstition” which had once clung to Melanchthon.

There is an element of truth in the later charge that Melanchthon was treated “with wonderful versatility.” On the one hand, his Augsburg Confession was alleged to contain “unscriptural doctrines” and “remnants of Romish error.” On the other hand, he was celebrated as the champion of a common Protestantism which was anti-Catholic and in which “every individual should be left to the free exercise of his own judgment.” On the one hand, Luther was the true progressive and Melanchthon the reactionary; on the other hand, Luther was the ultra-conservative and Melanchthon the liberal.¹⁹ Actually this charge does not do full justice to the perception of American theologians in the first half of the nineteenth century. They were distinguishing between the young and the old Melanchthon and were expressing a value judgment in favor of the latter. They were calling attention not to their own versatility in interpreting the reformer but to the versatility of Melanchthon, who in their eyes possessed the gift of shifting his position to meet changing situations and growing knowledge.

This alone can account for the fact that a Lutheran synod in America which had a twelve-year existence came to be officially named “The Melanchthon Synod.” When “American Lutheranism” was on the wane and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Maryland defeated the Definite Synodical Platform (which included a proposed American Recension of the Augsburg Confession), some of its members withdrew from the Maryland Synod in 1857 to form a new synod. Made up largely of rural ministers and congregations in the western part of Maryland—although at times including individual ministers in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Nova Scotia—the new synod reflected the spirit and leadership of one of the most extreme “Melanchthonians,” Benjamin Kurtz. Its doctrinal position was that of advanced “American Lutheranism,” rejecting those parts of the Augsburg Confession which treated ceremonies of the mass, private confession, baptismal regeneration, the real or corporeal presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and denial of the divine obligation of the Lord's Day.²⁰ The synod encouraged revivals, those “most precious effusions of the Holy Spirit,” and deplored the growing emphasis on costly church edifices, imposing ceremonies, and extended creeds.²¹ Dancing was declared to be “contrary to the Word of God and morally and physically detrimental.”²² “The scriptural doctrine with reference to the use of spiritual liquors, wine, and cider is ‘total abstinence,’” it was declared.²³ A president of the synod said, when exhorting his brethren, “I earnestly trust that all the friends of active and vital Christianity will set their faces like a flint against the inroads and encroachments of ritualism and formality.”²⁴ Members of the Melanchthon Synod did not claim to find precedents for attitudes such as these in the writings of Melanchthon, to which they had only limited access; if they had, they might have been chagrined to discover that Melanchthon danced, drank alcoholic beverages, advocated creedal subscription, and defended rites and ceremonies. But this was beside the point. They were “Melanchthonians” and called their organization the “Melanchthon Synod” not because they felt themselves bound to adopt his every opinion and practice but because they believed that he was the leading early Lutheran exponent of conciliation, progress, development, and adaptation.

II

If ever this type of “Melanchthonian Lutheranism” had an opportunity to establish itself in America it was just before the middle of the nineteenth century. Circumstances were favorable for it. “To fall into line with Puritan ways and Presbyterian teaching was easy, popular, almost irresistible.” It seemed to be a part of the process of adaptation to the American scene to compress Lutheran patterns of life “into the mould of Puritanism and Methodism.” But expectations were not realized in full measure. The sons of S. S. Schmucker, the standard bearer of American Lutheranism, abandoned their father's position. The Melanchthon Synod dissolved (1869) soon after its leader Benjamin Kurtz died, and although the constitution of Susquehanna University, which he founded, prohibited the teaching of the Lutheran doctrines of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, within a generation such doctrines were taught there. In his old age Samuel Sprecher, the third of the leaders of American Lutheranism, conceded that the movement was a mistake: “I thought at one time that a Lutheranism modified by the Puritan element would be desirable, but I … am convinced of its hopelessness.”²⁵ The movement was too negative to maintain itself, especially after the influence of the confessional awakening in Europe had made itself felt in America through literature and vast new immigrations.

During the latter half of the nineteenth century Lutherans in America gradually recovered an appreciation of the Confessions. Not only were attempts to revise the Augsburg Confession given up, but the other Confessions included in the Book of Concord were restored to a place of honor and authority. It was perceived that denominational integrity in America, where the voluntaristic principle of church membership prevailed, required adhesion to unambiguous declarations of faith. Much was therefore made of the unaltered Augsburg Confession, and extended discussions of the problems involved in the text of the Confession continued to the beginning of World War I. It was argued on the one hand that “the thanks of the entire Lutheran Church are due to Melanchthon for his variatae. He represents progress and adaptation in the Lutheran Church.”²⁶ This was an echo of the earlier “Melanchthonianism.” On the other hand it was argued that “Confessions cannot be altered or improved after they have become the basis of action.” By itself the “Melanchthonian principle” of adaptation can only lead to the absorption of Lutheranism in a “common Protestantism.”²⁷ This was a warning against a relapse into “American Lutheranism.”

Efforts were made to arrive at a juster assessment of Melanchthon with the help of better historical knowledge. It was suggested that a good balance between Luther and Melanchthon had been achieved in Pietism, which was described as “a revival of the principles and method of Luther as complemented by Melanchthon.”²⁸ It was also contended that neither “Lutherism” nor “Melanchthonism” is the whole of Lutheranism. Luther the prophet worked in harmony with Melanchthon the preceptor. Luther was the more original, Melanchthon the more logical. Luther quickened and impelled Melanchthon while the latter restrained and moderated the former. The influence of both is necessary, it was said, if the Lutheran Church is to remain “both conservative and progressive.”²⁹ Whatever balance might otherwise have been achieved was disturbed by the controversy over election and predestination which roiled the waters of the Lutheran Church in America from the close of the Civil War to World War I. The conciliatory Melanchthon was charged with having sowed the dragon's teeth of discord, for in deviating from Luther, it was said, he had lapsed into synergism and other errors which later bore fruit in Pietism, both in Europe and in America.³⁰

In the course of the twentieth century another aspect of Melanchthon's influence was given increasing attention. During the preceding half-century, as we have suggested, “American Lutheranism” had been counteracted by a return to the Confessions. As a rule the Confessions were interpreted in the light of the later dogmaticians of the seventeenth century, whose works were diligently studied as if their conclusions were normative. This introduced a traditionalism which implied that “the whole development of doctrine had been terminated and had been fixated and set down in the symbols of the Lutheran Church.” Instead of reading the symbols in the light of the Scriptures, the Scriptures tended to be read in the light of the symbols, and the symbols in turn to be read in the light of the later dogmatic authorities.³¹ The defects in this procedure, which was followed in practice more than in theory, were not fully exposed until the twentieth century.

Melanchthon, it was now stated, gave Protestantism its inclination to intellectualize religion. He “impressed the dialectic and text-book stamp upon the form of Lutheran theology from its first beginning to the very end of its highly wrought-out orthodox and classic period in the seventeenth century. The complete departure of the early and later Lutheran theological form from the method and the more vital and germinal insight of Luther into the modified Aristotelian frame of logical definition” was ascribed to Melanchthon. He was responsible for the reintroduction of Aristotle into theology. He emphasized natural religion and natural law. Accordingly, when in later editions of his Loci he discussed the nature of God, Melanchthon started with Plato and then added revelation. It was this method and spirit of Melanchthon, not the spirit of Luther, that led to the “ultraorthodoxy of the seventeenth century.”³²

On the surface, to be sure, Melanchthon did not seem to diverge from Luther. He used similar expressions, but his orientation was different. He regarded the supernatural ingredient in Christianity as information, and information which could be apprehended by natural man. As Melanchthon put it, man comes to a knowledge of God through “principles” similar to those by which man attains other knowledge: experience, syllogistic reasoning, understanding of fundamental concepts. Thus the Gospel conquers the mind, and the Gospel is more a deterrent to sin than a dynamic for Christian life. It was not only as a humanist that Melanchthon was led in this direction, but above all as an educator and church administrator.³³ It was this Melanchthon, the forerunner of Lutheran Orthodoxism, who gained ascendancy in America. Lutheran theology was stored “in the containers of Melanchthonian orthodoxy,” and in most catechetical literature to this day Luther's Small Catechism is interpreted not in the light of Luther himself but “with forms and pedagogical tools derived from Melanchthon.”³⁴ Whereas the “Melanchthonians” of the early nineteenth century were accommodating Lutheranism to revivalism and puritanical pietism, the “Melanchthonians” of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were repristinating the theology of the Protestant scholastics, who were later disciples of Melanchthon.

One additional influence of Melanchthon in America remains to be mentioned. Parallel to similar movements elsewhere, there has been a revival of liturgical interest in America which has evoked both commendation and criticism. Although it has earlier roots, the liturgical movement came to flower especially since the beginning of the twentieth century. In many of its recent expressions it betrays an Anglican cast, and consequently much is made of tradition and its authority in determining what is regarded as good practice. Attention has been focused on “restoration” of older rites and ceremonies, and there has been comparatively less concern about the relation of such forms to the current proclamation of the church.

It is not without significance in this connection that the Adiaphoristic Controversy is never discussed in liturgical literature in America. Insight into the dynamic connection between cultus and doctrine, which was so lacking in Melanchthon, seems to play no decisive role in contemporary treatments of public worship. In his own time Melanchthon maintained that because forms of worship are matters of indifference, neither commanded nor prohibited by God, Lutherans could observe Roman rites and ceremonies as long as “pure doctrine” was preserved. Here again he tended to intellectualize Christian faith. Matthias Flacius objected by declaring that things that are indifferent in themselves may nevertheless cease to be adiaphora. “If a doctrine is non-scriptural, then the ceremonies attached to it are non-scriptural. If a belief is idolatrous, then the ceremonies connected with it are idolatrous.” The position of Flacius was in its essence later incorporated in the Formula of Concord, while the views of Melanchthon came more or less to prevail in England,³⁵ whence much of the impetus for the American liturgical movement stems. It would be an over-statement to suggest that there has been a conscious adoption of Melanchthon's views on adiaphora, but that the tendency is nevertheless Melanchthonian can hardly be denied.

Such has been the career of Melanchthon's influence in America. He has been claimed and blamed for many things by many different groups. In no small measure the reason for this lies in Melanchthon himself, for he was a man of admirable gifts and noble impulses who was compelled by circumstances to assume a role in history for which he was not temperamentally suited. In comparison with Luther he has been called “the feminine principle of the Reformation.”³⁶ He has been credited with having had a significant formative influence on Luther's theology, and yet he has been assailed for his slightest departure from Luther.³⁷ A recent prophecy has been fulfilled: “American Lutheranism will not particularly note the anniversary of Melanchthon's death. The memory of the great reformer who himself needed reforming is too painful.”³⁸

Notes

1. James W. Richard, Philip Melanchthon, the Protestant Preceptor of Germany (New York, 1898). The only other full-length biography was published sixty years later: Clyde L. Manschreck, Melanchthon, the Quiet Reformer (Nashville, 1958).

2. Robert D. Cross, The Emergence of Liberal Catholicism in America (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 3.

3. William M. Reynolds, in a letter (1850) quoted in Adolph Spaeth, Charles Porterfield Krauth, Vol. I (New York, 1898), p. 179.

4. Edmund J. Wolf, “Melanchthonian Lutheranism,” in The Lutheran Evangelist, XV, No. 14 (Springfield, Ohio, Apr.3, 1891), p. 2. On the movement as a whole see Vergilius Ferm, The Crisis in American Lutheran Theology: A Study of the Issue Between American Lutheranism and Old Lutheranism (New York, 1927).

5. Joh. Aug. Probst, Die Wiedervereinigung der Lutheraner und Reformierten (Allentown, Pa., 1826), pp. 21, 50. For a Reformed view of Melanchthon's mediatorial role see James I. Good, The Origin of the Reformed Church in Germany (Reading, Pa., 1887), pp. 108-125.

6. Samuel Simon Schmucker, American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols on Certain Disputed Topics (Baltimore, 1856), pp. 53-55. Punctuation and the spelling of some proper names are somewhat altered here and in following quotations to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the reader.

7. S. S. Schmucker, The American Lutheran Church, Historically, Doctrinally, and Practically Delineated. Fifth ed. (Philadelphia, 1852), pp. 241, 242. Some neo-Romanticists interestingly use the same argument in reverse today.

8. Ibid., pp. 239, 240.

9. Ibid., p. 65; American Lutheranism Vindicated, pp. 138, 139.

10. Schmucker, American Lutheranism Vindicated, p. 110.

11. Schmucker, The American Lutheran Church, pp. 240, 241.

12. Schmucker, American Lutheranism Vindicated, p. 23. The reference is to the socalled altered or variatae editions of the Augsburg Confession.

13. S. S. Schmucker, Elements of Popular Theology. Third ed. (Baltimore, 1842), p. 250; The American Lutheran Church, p. 241.

14. Schmucker, American Lutheranism Vindicated, p. 179. Cf. A Liturgy for the Use of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, published by order of the General Synod (Baltimore, 1847), p. 126. The difference between Luther and Melanchthon on the Lord's Supper was grossly exaggerated, as it is by Manschreck when he writes of Luther's “semitransubstantiation” (op. cit., p. 230)!

15. Schmucker, The American Lutheran Church, p. 66.

16. S. S. Schmucker, Discourse Commemorating the Glorious Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1838), pp. vi, 34-66. Nativist propaganda, including the legend of Maria Monk, is here rehearsed at length.

17. Discipline, Articles of Faith, and Synodical Constitution as Adopted by the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of South Carolina (Baltimore, 1841), p. 21.

18. Schmucker, Elements of Popular Theology, p. 87.

19. Adolph Spaeth, “Melanchthon in American Lutheran Theology,” in The Lutheran Church Review, XVI (1897), pp. 104-106.

20. Minutes, Melanchthon Synod, 1856, pp. 9-16, 21; 1857, p. 9.

21. Ibid., 1864, pp. 6-10; 1865, p. 11.

22. Ibid., 1867, p. 25.

23. Ibid., 1867, pp. 25, 26.

24. Ibid., 1866, p. 7.

25. E. J. Wolf, “Melanchthonian Lutheranism,” in The Lutheran Evangelist, XV, No. 14 (Apr. 3, 1891), p. 2; No. 15 (Apr. 10, 1891), p. 2. Cf. Sprecher in No. 18 (May 1, 1891), p. 1.

26. James W. Richard, The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia, 1909), p. 232.

27. Theodore E. Schmauk, The Confessional Principle and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia, 1911), pp. 604, 636, 883.

28. Samuel Sprecher, The Groundwork of a System of Evangelical Lutheran Theology (Philadelphia, 1879), p. 177.

29. Richard, Confessional History, pp. 305-307.

30. F. Bente, “Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books,” in Concordia Triglotta (St. Louis, 1921), pp. 105, 106, 112, 128, 180.

31. Cf. Georg J. Fritschel, ed., Quellen und Dokumente zur Geschichte und Lehrstellung der ev.-luth. Synode von Iowa (Chicago, 1916), pp. 207-223.

32. Schmauk, op. cit., pp. 618-620, 624.

33. Richard R. Caemmerer, “The Melanchthonian Blight,” in Concordia Theological Monthly, XVIII (1947), pp. 321-338. Cf. also Jaroslav Pelikan, From Luther to Kierkegaard (St. Louis, 1950), pp. 24-48.

34. Robert C. Schultz, “Melanchthon after Four Hundred Years,” in The Cresset (Valparaiso, Ind.), Apr., 1960, p. 13.

35. Clyde L. Manschreck, “The Role of Melanchthon in the Adiaphora Controversy,” in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, XLVIII (1957), pp. 165-181; H. C. von Hase, “Occasions for Confession, 1548-1948,” in The Lutheran World Review, Vol. I, No. 2 (1948), pp. 27-37. For a stimulating study of Melanchthon's inclination to substitute concessions for confessions see Franz Hildebrandt, Melanchthon: Alien or Ally? (Cambridge, 1946).

36. J. L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I (Philadelphia, 1943), p. 256.

37. Cf. Lowell C. Green, in Gerhard L. Belgum, ed., The Mature Luther, Martin Luther Lectures III (Decorah, Iowa, 1959), pp. 123-129, 137. Walter G. Tillmanns, World and Men about Luther (Minneapolis, 1959), p. 106, curiously ascribes the present revival of interest in Melanchthon to the kinship of modern theologians with humanism. Harold H. Lentz, Reformation Crossroads (Minneapolis, 1958), emphasizes the ambiguities in Melanchthon's positions after the fashion of the late nineteenth century.

38. Schultz, op. cit., p. 14.