February 16, 2012 <Back to Index>
PAGE SPONSOR |
Philipp Melanchthon (February 16, 1497 – April 19, 1560), born Philipp Schwartzerdt, was a German reformer, collaborator with Martin Luther, the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and an influential designer of educational systems. He stands next to Luther and Calvin as a reformer, theologian, and molder of Protestantism. As much as Luther, he is the primary founder of Lutheranism. They both denounced what they saw as the exaggerated cult of the saints, justification by works, and the coercion of the conscience in the sacrament of penance that nevertheless could not offer certainty of salvation. Melanchthon made the distinction between law and gospel the central formula for Lutheran evangelical insight. By the "law" he meant the Papacy and rigid rituals controlled by priests; the "gospel" meant an individual directly confronting Christ through Bible reading, hymns and prayer. He was born Philipp Schwartzerdt (of which "Melanchthon" is a Greek translation) on 16 February 1497, at Bretten, near Karlsruhe, where his father, Georg Schwarzerdt, was armorer to Count Palatine Philip. In 1507 he was sent to the Latin school at Pforzheim, the rector of which, Georg Simler of Wimpfen, introduced him to the study of the Latin and Greek poets and of the philosophy of Aristotle. But he was chiefly influenced by his great-uncle, Johann Reuchlin, (as the husband of his grandmother on his maternal side) the great representative of humanism, who advised him to change his family name, Schwarzerdt (literally Black-earth), into the Greek equivalent Melanchthon (Μελάγχθων). Not yet thirteen years old, he entered in 1509 the University of Heidelberg where he studied philosophy, rhetoric, and astronomy/astrology, and was known as a good Greek scholar. Upon being refused the degree of master in 1512 on account of his youth, he went to Tübingen, where he pursued humanistic and philosophical studies, but devoted himself also to the study of jurisprudence, mathematics, astronomy/astrology, and even of medicine. While there, he was taught the technical aspects of astrology by his teacher, Johann Stöffler. When, having completed his philosophical course, he had taken the degree of master in 1516, he began to study theology. Under the influence of men like Reuchlin and Erasmus he became convinced that true Christianity was something quite different from scholastic theology as it was taught at the university. But at that time he had not yet formed fixed opinions on theology, since later he often called Luther his spiritual father. He became conventor (repentant) in the contubernium and had to instruct younger scholars. He also lectured on oratory, on Virgil and Livy. His first publications were an edition of Terence (1516) and his Greek grammar (1518), but he had written previously the preface to the Epistolae clarorum virorum of Reuchlin (1514). The more strongly he felt the opposition of the scholastic party to the reforms instituted by him at the University of Tübingen, the more willingly he followed a call to University of Wittenberg as professor by Luther, whose influence brought him to the study of Scripture, especially of Paul, and so to a more living knowledge of the Evangelical doctrine of salvation. He was present at the disputation of Leipzig (1519) as a spectator, but influenced the discussion by his comments and suggestions, so that he gave Johann Eck an excuse for an attack. In his Defensio contra Johannem Eckium (Wittenberg, 1519) he had already clearly developed the principles of the authority of Scripture and its interpretation. Because of the interest in theology shown in his lectures on the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans, together with his investigations into the doctrines of Paul, he was granted the degree of bachelor of theology, and was transferred to the theological faculty. Soon he was bound closer than ever to Wittenberg by his marriage to Katharina Krapp, the mayor's daughter, a marriage contracted at his friends' urgent request, and especially Luther's (Nov. 25, 1520). In the beginning of 1521 in his Didymi Faventini versus Thomam Placentinum pro M. Luthero oratio (Wittenberg, n.d.), he defended Luther by arguing that Luther rejected only papal and ecclesiastical practises which were at variance with Scripture, but not true philosophy and true Christianity. But while Luther was absent at Wartburg Castle, during the disturbances caused by the Zwickau prophets,
there appeared for the first time the limitations of Melanchthon's
nature, his lack of firmness and his diffidence against these prophets,
and had it not been for the energetic interference of Luther, the
prophets might not have been silenced. The appearance of Melanchthon's Loci communes rerum theologicarum seu hypotyposes theologicae (Wittenberg and Basel,
1521) was of great importance for the confirmation and expansion of the
ideas of the Reformation. In close adherence to Luther, Melanchthon
presented the new doctrine of Christianity under the form of a
discussion of the "leading thoughts" of the Epistle to the Romans. His
purpose was not to give a systematic exposition of Christian faith, but
a key to the right understanding of Scripture. Loci communes began the gradual rise of the Lutheran scholastic tradition, as the later theologians Martin Chemnitz, Mathias Haffenreffer, and Leonhard Hutter expanded upon it. Nevertheless,
he continued to lecture on the classics, and, after Luther's return,
might have given up his theological work altogether, if it had not been
for Luther's urging. On a journey in 1524 to his native town, he was led to engage in negotiations with the papal legate Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio who tried to draw him from Luther's cause, but without success either at that time or afterward. In his Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pfarherrn im Kurfürstentum zu Sachssen (1528)
Melanchthon by establishing a basis for the reform of doctrines as well
as regulations for churches and schools, without any direct attack upon
the supposed errors of the Catholic Church, presented clearly the Evangelical doctrine of salvation. In 1529 he accompanied the elector to the Diet of Speyer to represent the Evangelical cause. His hopes of inducing the imperial party to a peaceable recognition of the Reformation were not fulfilled. He later repented of the friendly attitude shown by him toward the Swiss at the diet, calling Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper "an impious dogma" and confirming Luther in his attitude of non-acceptance. The composition now known as the Augsburg Confession was laid before the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, and would come to be considered perhaps the most significant document of the Protestant Reformation. While the confession was based on Luther's Marburg and Schwabach articles,
it was mainly the work of Melanchthon. Although commonly thought of as
a unified statement of doctrine by the two reformers, Luther did not
conceal his dissatisfaction with the irenic tone
of the confession. Indeed, some would criticize Melanchthon's conduct
at the Diet as unbecoming of the principle he promoted, implying that
faith in the truth of his cause would logically have inspired
Melanchthon to a more firm and dignified posture. Others point out that
he had not sought the part of a political leader, suggesting that he
seemed to lack the requisite energy and decision for such a role and
may simply have been a lackluster judge of human nature. Melanchthon's
subsequent Apology of the Augsburg Confession reveals further doctrinal strains with Luther. Melanchthon
then settled into the comparative quiet of his academic and literary
labors. His most important theological work of this period was the Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Wittenberg,
1532), noteworthy for introducing the idea that "to be justified" means
"to be accounted just," whereas the Apology had placed side by side the
meanings of "to be made just" and "to be accounted just." Melanchthon's
increasing fame gave occasion for several honorable calls to
Tübingen (Sept., 1534), to France, and to England, but consideration of the elector caused him to refuse them. He took an important part in the discussions concerning the Lord's Supper which began in 1531. He approved fully of the Wittenberg Concord sent by Bucer to Wittenberg, and at the instigation of the Landgrave of Hesse discussed the question with Bucer in Kassel, at the end of 1534. He eagerly labored for an agreement, for his patristic studies and the Dialogue (1530) of Œcolampadius had
made him doubt the correctness of Luther's doctrine. Moreover, after
the death of Zwingli and the change of the political situation his
earlier scruples in regard to a union lost their weight. Bucer did not
go so far as to believe with Luther that the true body of Christ in the
Lord's Supper is bitten by the teeth, but admitted the offering of the
body and blood in the symbols of bread and wine. Melanchthon discussed
Bucer's views with the most prominent adherents of Luther; but Luther
himself would not agree to a mere veiling of the dispute. Melanchthon's
relation to Luther was not disturbed by his work as a mediator,
although Luther for a time suspected that Melanchthon was "almost of
the opinion of Zwingli"; nevertheless he desired to "share his heart
with him." During his sojourn in Tübingen in 1536 Melanchthon was severely attacked by Cordatus, preacher in Niemeck,
because he had taught that works are necessary for salvation. In the
second edition of his Loci (1535) he abandoned his earlier strict
doctrine of determinism which went even beyond that of Augustine, and in its place taught more clearly his so-called Synergism. He repulsed the attack of Cordatus in a letter to Luther and his other
colleagues by stating that he had never departed from their common
teachings on this subject, and in the Antinomian Controversy of 1537 Melanchthon was in harmony with Luther. The last eventful and sorrowful period of his life began with controversies over the Interims and the Adiaphora (1547). It is true, Melanchthon rejected the Augsburg Interim, which the emperor tried to force upon the defeated Protestants; but in the negotiations concerning the so-called Leipzig Interim he
made concessions which many feel can in no way be justified, even if
one considers his difficult position, opposed as he was to the elector
and the emperor. In agreeing to various Roman usages, Melanchthon started from the opinion that they are adiaphora if nothing is changed in the pure doctrine and the sacraments which Jesus instituted,
but he disregarded the position that concessions made under such circumstances have to be regarded as a denial of Evangelical
convictions. Melanchthon
himself perceived his faults in the course of time and repented of
them, perhaps having to suffer more than was just in the displeasure of
his friends and the hatred of his enemies. From now on until his death
he was full of trouble and suffering. After Luther's death he became
the "theological leader of the German Reformation," not indisputably,
however; for the Lutherans with Matthias Flacius at their head accused him and his followers of heresy and apostasy. Melanchthon bore all accusations and calumnies with admirable patience, dignity, and self-control. In his controversy on justification with Andreas Osiander Melanchthon satisfied all parties. Melanchthon took part also in a controversy with Stancari, who held that Christ was our justification only according to his human nature. He
was also still a strong opponent of the Roman Catholics, for it was by
his advice that the elector of Saxony declared himself ready to send
deputies to a council to be convened at Trent, but only under the condition that the Protestants should have a share in the discussions, and that the Pope should
not be considered as the presiding officer and judge. As it was agreed
upon to send a confession to Trent, Melanchthon drew up the Confessio Saxonica which
is a repetition of the Augsburg Confession, discussing, however, in
greater detail, but with moderation, the points of controversy with Rome. Melanchthon on his way to Trent at Dresden saw the military preparations of Maurice of Saxony, and after proceeding as far as Nuremberg,
returned to Wittenberg in March 1552, for Maurice had turned against
the emperor. Owing to his act, the condition of the Protestants became
more favorable and were still more so at the Peace of Augsburg (1555), but Melanchthon's labors and sufferings increased from that time. The
last years of his life were embittered by the disputes over the Interim
and the freshly started controversy on the Lord's Supper. As the
statement "good works are necessary for salvation" appeared in the
Leipzig Interim, its Lutheran opponents attacked in 1551 Georg Major,
the friend and disciple of Melanchthon, so Melanchthon dropped the
formula altogether, seeing how easily it could be misunderstood. But
all his caution and reservation did not hinder his opponents from
continually working against him, accusing him of synergism and Zwinglianism. At the Colloquy of Worms in
1557 which he attended only reluctantly, the adherents of Flacius and
the Saxon theologians tried to avenge themselves by thoroughly
humiliating Melanchthon, in agreement with the malicious desire of the
Roman Catholics to condemn all heretics,
especially those who had departed from the Augsburg Confession, before
the beginning of the conference. As this was directed against
Melanchthon himself, he protested, so that his opponents left, greatly
to the satisfaction of the Roman Catholics who now broke off the
colloquy, throwing all blame upon the Protestants. The Reformation in
the sixteenth century did not experience a greater insult, as Nietzsche says. Nevertheless, Melanchthon persevered in his efforts for the peace of the Church, suggesting a synod of the Evangelical party and drawing up for the same purpose the Frankfurt Recess, which he defended later against the attacks of his enemies. More
than anything else the controversies on the Lord's Supper embittered
the last years of his life. The renewal of this dispute was due to the
victory in the Reformed Church of the Calvinistic doctrine
and its influence upon Germany. To its tenets Melanchthon never gave
his assent, nor did he use its characteristic formulas. The personal
presence and self-impartation of
Christ in the Lord's Supper were especially important for Melanchthon;
but he did not definitely state how body and blood are related to this.
Although rejecting the physical act of mastication,
he nevertheless assumed the real presence of the body of Christ and
therefore also a real self-impartation. Melanchthon differed from Calvin also in emphasizing the relation of the Lord's Supper to justification.
Melanchthon viewed any veneration of saints rather critically but developed positive commentaries about Mary. In his Annotations in Evangelia commenting on Lk 2,52, he discusses the faith of Mary, “she kept all things in her heart” which to Melanchton is a call to the Church to follow her example. During the marriage at Cana,
Melanchton points out that Mary went too far, asking for more wine,
misusing her position. But she was not upset, when Jesus gently scolded
her. Mary was negligent, when she lost her son in the temple, but she did not sin. Mary
was conceived with original sin like every other human being, but she
was spared the consequences of it. Consequently, Melanchton opposed the
feast of the Immaculate Conception, which in his days, although not dogma, was celebrated in several cities and had been approved at the Council of Basel in 1439. He declared that the Immaculate Conception was an invention of monks. Mary is a representation (Typus) of the Church and in the Magnificat,
Mary spoke for the whole Church. Standing under the cross, Mary
suffered like no other human being. Consequently Christians have to
unite with her under the Cross, in order to become Christ-like. But
before these and other theological dissensions were ended, he died; a
few days before this event he committed to writing his reasons for not
fearing it. On the left were the words, "Thou shalt be delivered from
sins, and be freed from the acrimony and fury of theologians"; on the
right, "Thou shalt go to the light, see God, look upon his Son, learn
those wonderful mysteries which thou hast not been able to understand
in this life." The immediate cause of death was a severe cold which he
had contracted on a journey to Leipzig in March, 1560, followed by a
fever that consumed his strength, weakened by many sufferings. The
only care that occupied him until his last moment was the desolate
condition of the Church. He strengthened himself in almost uninterrupted prayer, and in listening to passages of Scripture.
Especially significant did the words seem to him, "His own received him
not; but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God." When Caspar Peucer (q.v.),
his son in-law, asked him if he wanted anything, he replied, "Nothing
but heaven." His body was laid beside Luther's in the
Schloßkirche in Wittenberg. He is commemorated in the Calendar of Saints of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod on February 16 and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on June 25. Melanchthon's
importance for the Reformation lay essentially in the fact that he
systematized Luther's ideas, defended them in public, and made them the
basis of a religious education. These two, by complementing each other,
could be said to have harmoniously achieved the results of the
Reformation. Melanchthon was impelled by Luther to work for the
Reformation; his own inclinations would have kept him a student.
Without Luther's influence Melanchthon would have been "a second
Erasmus," although his heart was filled with a deep religious interest
in the Reformation. While Luther scattered the sparks among the people,
Melanchthon by his humanistic studies won the sympathy of educated
people and scholars for the Reformation. Besides Luther's strength of
faith, Melanchthon's many-sidedness and calmness, as well as his
temperance and love of peace, had a share in the success of the
movement. Both
men had a clear consciousness of their mutual position and the divine
necessity of their common calling. Melanchthon wrote in 1520, "I would
rather die than be separated from Luther," whom he afterward compared to Elijah, and called "the man full of the Holy Ghost."
In spite of the strained relations between them in the last years of
Luther's life, Melanchthon exclaimed at Luther's death, "Dead is the
horseman and chariot of Israel who ruled the Church in this last age of
the world!" On the other hand, Luther wrote of Melanchthon, in the preface to Melanchthon's Commentary on the Galatians (1529), "I had to fight with rabble and devils,
for which reason my books are very warlike. I am the rough pioneer who
must break the road; but Master Philipp comes along softly and gently,
sows and waters heartily, since God has richly endowed him with gifts."
Luther also did justice to Melanchthon's teachings, praising one year
before his death in the preface to his own writings Melanchthon's revised Loci above
them and calling Melanchthon "a divine instrument which has achieved
the very best in the department of theology to the great rage of the
devil and his scabby tribe." It is remarkable that Luther, who
vehemently attacked men like Erasmus and Bucer, when he thought that
truth was at stake, never spoke directly against Melanchthon, and even
during his melancholy last years conquered his temper. The
strained relation between these two men never came from external
things, such as human rank and fame, much less from other advantages,
but always from matters of Church and doctrine, and chiefly from the
fundamental difference of their individualities; they repelled and
attracted each other "because nature had not formed out of them one
man." However, it can not be denied that Luther was the more
magnanimous, for however much he was at times dissatisfied with
Melanchthon's actions, he never uttered a word against his private
character; but Melanchthon, on the other hand, sometimes evinced a lack
of confidence in Luther. In a letter to Carlowitz he complained that
Luther on account of his polemical nature exercised a personally humiliating pressure upon him. As
a reformer, Melanchthon was characterized by moderation,
conscientiousness, caution, and love of peace; but these qualities were
sometimes said to only be lack of decision, consistence, and courage.
Often, however, his actions are shown stemming not from anxiety for his
own safety, but from regard for the welfare of the community and for
the quiet development of the Church. Melanchthon
was not said to lack personal courage, but rather he was said to be
less of an aggressive than of a passive nature. When he was reminded
how much power and strength Luther drew from his trust in God,
he answered, "If I myself do not do my part, I can not expect anything
from God in prayer." His nature was seen to be inclined to suffer with faith in God that he would be released from every evil rather than to act valiantly with his aid. The
distinction between Luther and Melanchthon is well brought out in
Luther's letters to the latter (June, 1530): "To your great anxiety by
which you are made weak, I am a cordial foe; for the cause is not ours.
It is your philosophy, and not your theology, which tortures you so, --
as though you could accomplish anything by your useless anxieties. So
far as the public cause is concerned, I am well content and satisfied;
for I know that it is right and true, and, what is more, it is the
cause of Christ and God himself. For that reason, I am merely a
spectator. If we fall, Christ will likewise fall; and if he fall, I
would rather fall with Christ than stand with the emperor." Another
trait of his character was his love of peace. He had an innate aversion
to quarrels and discord; yet, often he was very irritable. His irenical
character often led him to adapt himself to the views of others, as may
be seen from his correspondence with Erasmus and from his public
attitude from the Diet of Augsburg to the Interim. It was said not to
be merely a personal desire for peace, but his conservative religious
nature that guided him in his acts of conciliation. He never could
forget that his father on his death-bed had besought his family "never
to leave the Church." He stood toward the history of the Church in an
attitude of piety and reverence that made it much more difficult for
him than for Luther to be content with the thought of the impossibility
of a reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. He laid stress upon
the authority of the Fathers, not only of Augustine, but also of the Greeks. His attitude in matters of worship was conservative, and in the Leipsic Interim he was said by Cordatus and Schenk even to be Crypto - Catholic.
He never strove for a reconciliation with Roman Catholicism at the
price of pure doctrine. He attributed more value to the external
appearance and organization of the Church than Luther did, as can be
seen from his whole treatment of the "doctrine of the Church." The
ideal conception of the Church, which the Reformers opposed to the
organization of the Roman Church, which was expressed in his Loci of
1535, lost for him after 1537 its former prominence, when he began to
emphasize the conception of the true visible Church as it may be found
among the Evangelicals. The
relation of the Church to God he found in the divinely ordered office,
the ministry of the Gospel. The universal priesthood was for
Melanchthon as for Luther no principle of an ecclesiastical
constitution, but a purely religious principle. In accordance with this
idea Melanchthon tried to keep the traditional church constitution and
government, including the bishops. He did not want, however, a church
altogether independent of the State, but rather, in agreement with
Luther, he believed it the duty of the secular authorities to protect
religion and the Church. He looked upon the consistories as
ecclesiastical courts which therefore should be composed of spiritual
and secular judges, for to him the official authority of the Church did
not lie in a special class of priests, but rather in the whole
congregation, to be represented therefore not only by ecclesiastics,
but also by laymen. Melanchthon in advocating church union did not
overlook differences in doctrine for the sake of common practical tasks. The
older he grew, the less he distinguished between the Gospel as the
announcement of the will of God, and right doctrine as the human
knowledge of it. Therefore he took pains to safeguard unity in doctrine
by theological formulas of union, but these were made as broad as
possible and were restricted to the needs of practical religion. As
a scholar Melanchthon embodied the entire spiritual culture of his age.
At the same time he found the simplest, clearest, and most suitable
form for his knowledge; therefore his manuals, even if they were not
always original, were quickly introduced into schools and kept their
place for more than a century. Knowledge
had for him no purpose of its own; it existed only for the service of
moral and religious education, and so the teacher of Germany prepared
the way for the religious thoughts of the Reformation. He is the father
of Christian humanism,
which has exerted a lasting influence upon scientific life in Germany.
[But it is Erasmus who is called, "The Prince of the Humanists.] His
works were not always new and original, but they were clear,
intelligible, and answered their purpose. His style is natural and
plain, better, however, in Latin and Greek than in German. He was not
without natural eloquence, although his voice was weak. As
a theologian, Melanchthon did not show so much creative ability, but
rather a genius for collecting and systematizing the ideas of others,
especially of Luther, for the purpose of instruction. He kept to the
practical, and cared little for connection of the parts, so his Loci were in the form of isolated paragraphs. The fundamental difference between Luther and Melanchthon lies not so much in the latter's ethical conception, as in his humanistic mode
of thought which formed the basis of his theology and made him ready
not only to acknowledge moral and religious truths outside of
Christianity, but also to bring Christian truth into closer contact
with them, and thus to mediate between Christian revelation and ancient philosophy. Melanchthon's
views differed from Luther's only in some modifications of ideas.
Melanchthon looked upon the law as not only the correlate of the
Gospel, by which its effect of salvation is prepared, but as the
unchangeable order of the spiritual world which has its basis in God
himself. He furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption
to that of legal satisfaction. He did not draw from the vein of
mysticism running through Luther's theology, but emphasized the ethical
and intellectual elements. After
giving up determinism and absolute predestination and ascribing to man
a certain moral freedom, he tried to ascertain the share of free will in
conversion, naming three causes as concurring in the work of
conversion, the Word, the Spirit, and the human will, not passive, but
resisting its own weakness. Since 1548 he used the definition of
freedom formulated by Erasmus, "the capability of applying oneself to grace." His
definition of faith lacks the mystical depth of Luther. In dividing
faith into knowledge, assent, and trust, he made the participation of
the heart subsequent to that of the intellect, and so gave rise to the
view of the later orthodoxy that the establishment and acceptation of
pure doctrine should precede the personal attitude of faith. To his
intellectual conception of faith corresponded also his view that the
Church also is only the communion of those who adhere to the true
belief and that her visible existence depends upon the consent of her
unregenerated members to her teachings. Finally,
Melanchthon's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, lacking the profound
mysticism of faith by which Luther united the sensual elements and
supersensual realities, demanded at least their formal distinction. The development of Melanchthon's beliefs may be seen from the history of the Loci.
In the beginning Melanchthon intended only a development of the leading
ideas representing the Evangelical conception of salvation, while the
later editions approach more and more the plan of a textbook of dogma.
At first he uncompromisingly insisted on the necessity of every event,
energetically rejected the philosophy of Aristotle, and had not fully developed his doctrine of the sacraments. In 1535 he treated for the first time the doctrine of God and that of the Trinity;
rejected the doctrine of the necessity of every event and named free
will as a concurring cause in conversion. The doctrine of justification
received its forensic form and the necessity of good works was
emphasized in the interest of moral discipline. The last editions are
distinguished from the earlier ones by the prominence given to the
theoretical and rational element. In
ethics Melanchthon preserved and renewed the tradition of ancient
morality and represented the Evangelical conception of life. His books
bearing directly on morals were chiefly drawn from the classics, and
were influenced not so much by Aristotle as by Cicero. His principal works in this line were Prolegomena to Cicero's De officiis (1525); Enarrationes librorum Ethicorum Aristotelis (1529); Epitome philosophiae moralis (1538); and Ethicae doctrinae elementa (1550). In his Epitome philosophiae moralis Melanchthon treats first the relation of philosophy to the law of God and the Gospel. Moral philosophy, it is true, does not know anything of the promise of grace as revealed
in the Gospel, but it is the development of the natural law implanted
by God in the heart of man, and therefore representing a part of the
divine law. The revealed law, necessitated because of sin,
is distinguished from natural law only by its greater completeness and
clearness. The fundamental order of moral life can be grasped also by
reason; therefore the development of moral philosophy from natural
principles must not be neglected. Melanchthon therefore made no sharp
distinction between natural and revealed morals. His
contribution to Christian ethics in the proper sense must be sought in
the Augsburg Confession and its Apology as well as in his Loci,
where he followed Luther in depicting the Evangelical ideal of life,
the free realization of the divine law by a personality blessed in
faith and filled with the spirit of God. Melanchthon's formulation of the authority of Scripture became the norm for the following time. The principle of his hermeneutics is
expressed in his words: "Every theologian and faithful interpreter of
the heavenly doctrine must necessarily be first a grammarian, then a dialectician, and finally a witness." By "grammarian" he meant the philologist in the modern sense who is master of history, archaeology, and ancient geography.
As to the method of interpretation, he insisted with great emphasis
upon the unity of the sense, upon the literal sense in contrast to the
four senses of the scholastics. He further stated that whatever is
looked for in the words of Scripture, outside of the literal sense, is
only dogmatic or practical application. His
commentaries, however, are not grammatical, but are full of theological
and practical matter, confirming the doctrines of the Reformation, and
edifying believers. The most important of them are those on Genesis, Proverbs, Daniel, the Psalms, and especially those on the New Testament, on Romans (edited in 1522 against his will by Luther), Colossians (1527), and John (1523). Melanchthon was the constant assistant of Luther in his translation of the Bible, and both the books of the Maccabees in Luther's Bible are ascribed to him. A Latin Bible published in 1529 at Wittenberg is designated as a common work of Melanchthon and Luther. In
the sphere of historical theology the influence of Melanchthon may be
traced until the seventeenth century, especially in the method of
treating church history in connection with political history. His was the first Protestant attempt at a history of dogma, Sententiae veterum aliquot patrum de caena domini (1530) and especially De ecclesia et auctoritate verbi Dei (1539). Melanchthon
exerted a wide influence in the department of homiletics, and has been
regarded as the author, in the Protestant Church, of the methodical
style of preaching. He himself keeps entirely aloof from all mere
dogmatizing or rhetoric in the Annotationes in Evangelia (1544), the Conciones in Evangelium Matthaei (1558), and in his German sermons prepared for George of Anhalt. He never preached from the pulpit; and his Latin sermons (Postilla) were prepared for the Hungarian students at Wittenberg who did not understand German. In this connection may be mentioned also his Catechesis puerilis (1532), a religious manual for younger students, and a German catechism (1549), following closely Luther's arrangement. From
Melanchthon came also the first Protestant work on the method of
theological study, so that it may safely be said that by his influence
every department of theology was advanced even if he was not always a
pioneer. As a philologist and pedagogue Melanchthon was the spiritual heir of the South German Humanists, of men like Reuchlin, Wimpheling, and Rodolphus Agricola, who represented an ethical conception of the humanities. The liberal arts and a classical education were
for him only a means to an ethical and religious end. The ancient
classics were for him in the first place the sources of a purer
knowledge, but they were also the best means of educating the youth
both by their beauty of form and by their ethical content. By his
organizing activity in the sphere of educational institutions and by
his compilations of Latin and Greek grammars and
commentaries, Melanchthon became the founder of the learned schools of
Evangelical Germany, a combination of humanistic and Christian ideals.
In philosophy also Melanchthon was the teacher of the whole German
Protestant world. The influence of his philosophical compendia ended
only with the rule of the Leibniz - Wolff school. He started from scholasticism;
but with the contempt of an enthusiastic Humanist he turned away from
it and came to Wittenberg with the plan of editing the complete works
of Aristotle. Under the dominating religious influence of Luther his
interest abated for a time, but in 1519 he edited the "Rhetoric" and in
1520 the "Dialectic." The
relation of philosophy to theology is characterized, according to him,
by the distinction between law and Gospel. The former, as a light of
nature, is innate; it also contains the elements of the natural
knowledge of God which, however, have been obscured and weakened by
sin. Therefore, renewed promulgation of the law by revelation became
necessary and was furnished in the Decalogue; and all law, including
that in the scientific form of philosophy, contains only demands,
shadowings; its fulfilment is given only in the Gospel, the object of
certainty in theology, by which also the philosophical elements of
knowledge — experience, principles of reason, and syllogism --
receive only their final confirmation. As the law is a divinely ordered
pedagogue that leads to Christ, philosophy, its interpreter, is subject
to revealed truth as the principal standard of opinions and life. Besides Aristotle's "Rhetoric" and "Dialectic" he published De dialecta libri iv (1528); Erotemata dialectices (1547); Liber de anima (1540); Initia doctrinae physicae (1549); and Ethicae doctrinae elementa (1550). There have been preserved original portraits of Melanchthon by three famous painters of his time — by Holbein in various versions, one of them in the Royal Gallery of Hanover, by Albrecht Dürer (made
in 1526, meant to convey a spiritual rather than physical likeness and
said to be eminently successful in doing so), and by Lucas Cranach. Melanchthon
was dwarfish, misshapen, and physically weak, although he is said to
have had a bright and sparkling eye, which kept its color till the day
of his death. He was never in perfectly sound health, and managed to
perform as much work as he did only by reason of the extraordinary
regularity of his habits and his great temperance. He set no great
value on money and possessions; his liberality and hospitality were
often misused in such a way that his old faithful Swabian servant had sometimes difficulty in managing the household. His
domestic life was happy. He called his home "a little church of God,"
always found peace there, and showed a tender solicitude for his wife
and children. To his great astonishment a French scholar found him
rocking the cradle with one hand, and holding a book in the other. His
noble soul showed itself also in his friendship for many of his
contemporaries; "there is nothing sweeter nor lovelier than mutual
intercourse with friends," he used to say. His most intimate friend was Camerarius,
whom he called the half of his soul. His extensive correspondence was
for him not only a duty, but a need and an enjoyment. His letters form
a valuable commentary on his whole life, as he spoke out his mind in
them more unreservedly than he was wont to do in public life. A
peculiar example of his sacrificing friendship is furnished by the fact
that he wrote speeches and scientific treatises for others, permitting
them to use their own signature. But in the kindness of his heart he
was said to be ready to serve and assist not only his friends, but
everybody. He was an enemy to jealousy, envy, slander, and sarcasm.
His whole nature adapted him especially to the intercourse with
scholars and men of higher rank, while it was more difficult for him to
deal with the people of lower station. He never allowed himself or
others to exceed the bounds of nobility, honesty, and decency. He was
very sincere in the judgment of his own person, acknowledging his
faults even to opponents like Flacius,
and was open to the criticism even of such as stood far below him. In
his public career he sought not honor or fame, but earnestly endeavored
to serve the Church and the cause of truth. His
humility and modesty had their root in his personal piety. He laid
great stress upon prayer, daily meditation on the Word, and attendance
of public service. In Melanchthon is found not a great, impressive
personality, winning its way by massive strength of resolution and
energy, but a noble character hard to study without loving and
respecting. |