Philip Melanchthon and the Cappadocians: A Reception of Greek Patristic Sources in the Sixteenth Century 9783666550676, 9783525550670, 9783647550671

Citation preview

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Refo500 Academic Studies

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Ute Lotz-Heumann (Tucson), Mathijs Lamberigts (Leuven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Johannes Schilling (Kiel), Günther Wassilowsky (Linz), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück), David M. Whitford (Trotwood) Volume 16

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

H. Ashley Hall

Philip Melanchthon and the Cappadocians A Reception of Greek Patristic Sources in the Sixteenth Century

With one figure

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55067-0 ISBN 978-3-647-55067-1 (E-book) Ó 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printing and binding: a Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed in Germany

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Acknowledgements and Dedication

An author is humbled to consider all the people who have helped to give birth to the book that is fortunate enough to be published. I am grateful for the support and encouragement of Prof. Herman J. Selderhuis, the editor for the Refo500 Academic Studies series. Also, I am grateful to Dr. Günter Frank, Director of the Melanchthon House in Bretten, who gave me my first opportunity to present at an academic conference so long ago and who encouraged me along the way. Likewise, Dr. Stefan Rhein was a friendly and willing resource. I would like to thank Ruth Vachek, editor at Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, and Tara Knapp, who indexed the work, for their kind and professional services. I am grateful to the Leibniz Institute for European History in Mainz, where the bulk of this research was completed. The opportunities it offers to scholars are unparalleled. I am indebted to the guidance and support of Prof. Markus Wriedt (now of the Goethe University Frankfurt), who was my primary contact at the Institute. Dr. Rolf Decot, Dr. Gerhard May (†), and Prof. Dr. Irene Dingel also offered stimulating conversation and direction. A particularly helpful (and humbling) experience was an afternoon spent with Dr. Heinz Scheible of the Melanchthon Research Center in Heidelberg. As to my formation as a scholar and the particular content and craft of the text itself, I am indebted first and foremost to Prof. Joseph T. Lienhard, SJ of Fordham University. He is a Doktorvater without parallel and I shall always judge the quality of my work and quality as a teacher in relation to the exemplary standard he set. I am also profoundly indebted to Prof. Timothy J. Wengert of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. This project would not have been possible without his guidance and service as co-mentor of my dissertation. In knowledge of Melanchthon’s works and method, he is second only to Dr. Scheible and the unquestioned dean of Melanchthon research in the English language. I am indebted to those whose love and friendship supported me along the way : first and foremost my parents, Pamela D. Bennett, Harold L. Hall and Cynthia M. Hall; and my family ; too many to name but a special word of thanks must go to Elaine and Jerry Cobb as well as to David and Lorraine Ozar. I would

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

6

Acknowledgements and Dedication

also like to thank: Sarah J. Spangler, Carl F. Baechle, Kathleen Urda, Christopher Arroyo, Amy Peters, Amy Wendling, Jessica Benjamin, John Rynearson, and Stephen Wilson. Special thanks are reserved for : Prof. Irving Kelter, who first implanted the love for the sixteenth century and research in my heart as a firstyear student at the University of St. Thomas, Houston; Prof. Eric W. Gritsch (†) and his wife Bonnie Brobst, who welcomed me into their home and treated me like a son; and Avery Cardinal Dulles (†), my professor and for whom I was honored to serve as graduate assistant; both Profs. Gritsch and Dulles inspired in me a vision of what a true “theologian of the Church” is. A special word of thanks goes to Anne Ozar, who is my loving wife, the truest friend, an accomplished scholar, and conversation partner par excellence. Finally, I would like to thank those who particularly inspired me and made my graduate education possible: the congregation of Christ the King Evangelical Lutheran Church in Houston, Texas. I consider it a gift of providential care that I discovered this congregation in college, for it was there that I found a congregation that embraced the rich liturgical and sacramental Lutheran tradition, affirmed the Creeds and Confessions as its lodestar, and was profoundly engaged in living the Gospel through service to our neighbor. They led me to Philip Melanchthon. In doing so, they helped me discover and explore my Lutheran and Christian faith in a way that was both confessionally rooted and ecumenically engaged. I carry that vision with me as a both scholar and pastor. I am deeply grateful to the Rev. Robert G. Moore, Ph.D., whom I still consider my pastor, mentor, and friend. He, and his wife Kathy, made my journey possible. They marshaled those benefactors who offered the encouragement, prayers, and financial resources necessary to make my graduate education a reality ; some are known to me but many are unknown. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge: Bill Mintz and Kathy Collins, John and Val Williams, William Caudell, Phil and Ute Cezeaux, Al (†) and Bridget Jensen, Robert and Patty (†) Stone, Margaret (Peggy) Johnson, Charles and Janice Thompson, and Marie and Paul Monroe. It is to Robert and Kathy, these benefactors, and the entire congregation of Christ the King Lutheran Church that this book is dedicated because they made it possible. Soli Deo Gloria.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Contents

Acknowledgements and Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cappadocian Fathers Identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Serpent and the Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 16 18

Chapter 1: Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority . . . . 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Patristic Revival of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 On Humanism and Scholasticism . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Christian Humanist and the Reformation . . . 3. Melanchthon: “Between” Humanism and Reform? . . . . 3.1 Melanchthon and Erasmus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Melanchthon and Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Melanchthon and Patristic Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources . . 5.1 Melanchthon and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Melanchthon’s Understanding of Tradition . . . . . . 5.3 The Necessary Distinction between the Law and the Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 The Interplay between Gospel, Scripture, and Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Consensus Antiquitatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Scriptores puriores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Chain of Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 The Church as a School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 A Theological Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

23 23

. . . . . . . . . .

25 25 28 32 35 36 39 41 41 45

.

47

.

51

. . . . . .

53 53 57 58 60 61

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

8

Contents

7. Why the Cappadocians? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

Chapter 2: Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Greek Patristic Sources in Italy : Byzantine Editors and Translators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Aldine Press . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Christian Humanism in German Universities . . . . . . . . 3.1 University of Heidelberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 University of Tübingen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 University of Wittenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Greek and Rhetoric at Wittenberg . . . . . . . . 4. Melanchthon’s Education and Early Career . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Early Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Melanchthon’s University Education . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Professor of Greek and Rhetoric and Student of Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Melanchthon’s Patristic Lectures and Knowledge of Cappadocian Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen 6.1 De Ecclesia et De Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 . . . . . . 6.1.1 Criticisms of the Cappadocians . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 De Basilio Episcopo, 1545 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Postilla, On Basil, 1555/1549 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 De Gregorio Nazianzeno, 1558 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Images of Melanchthon Associated with the Basil and Nazianzen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Melanchthon and Basil; Cranach the Younger, 1559 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Melanchthon and Gregory Nazianzen; Cranach Workshop, 1560 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67 67

Chapter 3: Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Radical Reformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Zwickau Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Theological Criticisms of Radicalism . . . . . . . . . 3.1 On the Merit of Theological Studies: The Unity of Church and Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

68 69 70 70 71 72 74 75 75 77 79 82 86 86 87 91 94 97 100 100 102 103

. . . . .

105 105 106 109 113

. . .

113

. . . . .

. . . . .

9

Contents

3.2 A Defense of Philosophy and the Natural Science . . . 3.3 Cappadocians as Exemplary Learned Theologians . . . 4. Melanchthon against the Anti-Trinitarians . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Defense of “Logos” as “Word” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Biblical Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 The Patristic Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Cappadocian References to Christological and Trinitarian Doctrines in Didactic Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Augmented Sections in Subsequent Editions of the Loci Communes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 The Loci Communes, 1535 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 The Loci Communes, 1543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere, 1553 . . . . . . . 6. Defense of Christological and Trinitarian Formulations in Other Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 On the Divinity of the Holy Spirit Proven through Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Holy Spirit at Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119 120 122 124 124 125

Chapter 4: Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Doctrine of Justification by Grace through Faith Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Appeals to St. Paul and St. Augustine . . . . . . . . . . 3. St. Basil on Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Melanchthon and St. Basil on Justification . . . . . . . 4. On Bishops and Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 On the Power of the Papacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Basil on Episcopal Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Basil as Model for the Princes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Gregory Nazianzen on Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Melanchthon on Basil’s Confrontation with the Emperor . 6. On Monasticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass . . . . . . . 7.1 The Liturgies of Sts. Basil and John Chrysostom . . . . 7.2 Melanchthon’s Appeals to the Greek Canon . . . . . . 8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143 144

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

129 129 132 135 137 139 139 141 142

145 145 149 150 155 158 160 160 161 164 165 169 171 172 180

10

Contents

Chapter 5: Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Melanchthon’s Citation of the Cappadocians in the Debate Over Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The Loci communes of 1543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Basil in the Controversy over Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Controversy over Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The Controversy over Grace during the Augsburg Interim (1548) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Melanchthon’s Appeals to St. Gregory Nazianzen for the Virtue of Forgiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix: The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Cappadocians: Formation of an Image . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Oration 43 of Gregory Nazianzen . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Cappadocians in Early Hagiographies and Church Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica . . . . . . 3.2 St. Jerome, De viris illustribus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Rufinus of Aquileia, Historia ecclesiastica . . . . . . . 3.4 Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Cassiodorus . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend . . . . . . . . 4. Feast Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Modern Studies in the Textual Reception of Cappadocian Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa . . . . . 5.3 Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzen . . . . . . 5.4 The Wittenberg University Catalogue of 1536 . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

183 183 185 197 198 207 208 209 214 217

219 219 221 221 224 225 225 227 228 230 232 234 235 236 238 240 246 253

11

Contents

6. Patristic Anthologies in the Sixteenth Century . . . . . . .

255

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

257

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

259

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Introduction

As Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. – John 3:14 – 15 Unus est Magister vester, Christus. Id est, non fingite novam doctrinam, sed audite unicum Magistrum Christum. Hic est Filius, qui ex sinu aeterni Patris protulit doctrinam, hanc unam concordi voce sonate. – Annotationes et Conciones in Evang. Mattheaei, 15231

There are two images from the life of Philip Melanchthon (1497 – 1560) that I think will help frame this examination into his use of Greek patristic sources; particularly, of the Cappadocian Fathers (Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Thaumaturgus). The first image is a portrait of Melanchthon hanging in the Städel Museum, Frankfurt, Germany. It offers to the viewer what I think can be fairly described as a visual last will and testament from a major Reformation theologian. Created in the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Younger in 1559, the painting presents the elderly Reformer in a red shirt and fur-lined coat, holding an open book. On the left-hand side of the page (from the perspective of the viewer) is a Greek quotation from St. Basil’s homily On Humility which emphasizes divine grace, reflecting the Cappadocian’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1: 26 – 30.2 On the righthand side of the page is a Latin poem crafted by Melanchthon in 1553 emphasizing God’s prevenient grace while rejecting Stoic (i. e., Calvinistic) determinism. This image demonstrates Melanchthon’s persistent affirmation that 1 CR 14, 968. 2 “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

14

Introduction

the Wittenberg evangelical theology is essentially catholic theology by virtue of its harmony with the best authors of the Christian tradition. How should the observer interpret this image? To Melanchthon’s critics, the answer comes easily enough. Several schools of Melanchthon studies would say that the Cranach portrait reveals that Melanchthon was never truly a Lutheran. Some, such as Wilhelm Mauer and Clyde Manschreck, would say the painting is proof that he was still far too enamored with Christian Humanism to be a real disciple of Luther. Others, starting with Calvin and going up through Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf von Harnack, would say that the painting instead indicates that Melanchthon was at heart most sympathetic to the Reformed tradition; his fault was simply in being a soul too loyal to ever openly break with Luther. This criticism is repeated by some Lutherans as well, from Flacius up to Jaroslav Pelikan and J.A.O. Preus, to show that Melanchthon simply cannot be trusted as an authentic teacher of the gospel. As a result, Richard Caemmerer referred to “a Melanchthonian blight” in Lutheran studies. Still others, from Karlstadt to Karl Barth, would see this painting as an example of Melanchthon’s futile effort (and crypto-Roman habit) of trying to unite the Academy and the Tradition to the proclamation of the gospel. Melanchthon studies tend to tell us more about the authors of such studies than the subject himself. Even if we set theological questions posed by this image aside and consider what it might reveal about Melanchthon as a patristic scholar, we see his reputation is equally marred. He is often compared to Erasmus and always found lacking. Melanchthon’s Roman Catholic and Reformed contemporaries were frustrated by the fact that Melanchthon had an obviously deep knowledge of and appreciation for patristic sources while at the same time he completely rejected a consensus antiquitatis approach to reform. The confusion is compounded when we come across several affirmations in Melanchthon that we must search for and use the testimony of the “more pure writers” of the patristic period. When we turn to see how Melanchthon actually used these sources, many scholars are dissatisfied. For instance, twentieth-century scholar E. P. Meijering wrote a monograph on Melanchthon’s pastristic references in major theological themes. In Meijering’s judgment, Melanchthon is inconsistent, sloppy, and even downright dishonest with his sources. What emerges from the majority of Melanchthon studies is a description of a man who is deeply pious and learned (though perhaps a tad too sensitive and timid) who feels drawn toward two compelling yet diametrically opposed poles: on the one hand, the Lutheran articulation of the radical sufficiency of the “pure” gospel and, on the other, the Christian Humanist’s appreciation for letters and history that pours out into the steams of either Reformed or Reform Catholic articulations of doctrine. This captures the problem (or, in the words of Manschreck, the “tragedy”) of Melanchthon. Melanchthon’s work as a philologist,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

15

Introduction

pedagogue, and theologian is largely obscured by “wax-build up” of misguided expectations and foregone conclusions. Melanchthon studies have typically framed Melanchthon within a series of contradictions: the gospel yet tradition; the Church yet Academy ; the Fathers yet not all of them. I argue that these contradictions arise only as a result of failure to understand Melanchthon’s articulation of the gospel and his method for reading history in general and the patristic testimony in particular. Instead of “a Melanchthonian blight” on Lutheranism, I suggest that there has been a blight on Melanchthon studies: far too many descriptions of Melanchthon are caught up in the debates of the nineteenth century than the sixteenth. Contrary to his critics (past and present), I argue that Melanchthon’s reading of the Fathers was neither arbitrary, contradictory, nor Erasmian. With Peter Fraenkel, Heinz Scheible, and Timothy J. Wengert, I demonstrate that Melanchthon was far more consistent, careful, and tenacious than he is given credit for. French Jesuit theologian Henri de Lubac, in trying to clear away similar misunderstandings around the legacy of Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185 – 254), urged his readers to “observe Origen at work.” At the risk of inviting direct comparisons (Melanchthon notoriously discredited Origen as a theologian!) this study follows the same method and encourages the reader to follow. There are a several studies about Melanchthon but very few document the manner and motives with which Melanchthon reveals his deepest convictions and demonstrates his methods. Melanchthon’s use of a particular group of fourth-century Greek-speaking theologians might seem an arcane and obscure way of demonstration. However, my choice of the Cappadocian Fathers is not accidental. These patristic figures stand at the heart of Melanchthon’s work as a philologist, pedagogue, and theologian. As Melanchthon sought to teach the gospel as well as defend it from certain attacks, he turned to the particular Fathers whom he knew had been so influential in the articulation and defense of Christian doctrine. From his time as a student to his last theological treatise, Melanchthon consistently appealed to the Cappadocian Fathers as “more pure writers.” They were indefatigable and irrefutable testimonies to the primary concerns of his career as well as exemplars during personal crisis. This work examines when, where, and why Melanchthon appealed to the Cappadocian Fathers. They appear not only in expected debates (such as over prevenient grace, monasticism, freedom of the will, the sacrifice of the mass, the necessity of education for clergy, and even as models of Greek grammar) but also in some surprising places, such as Melanchthon’s personal appreciation for Gregory Nazianzen’s poetry. Beyond our immediate expectations, they were central authorities for Melanchthon. Yet, as much as he appreciated the Cappadocians, Melanchthon did not idolize them; he was sharply

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

16

Introduction

critical of them when he thought they misspoke or failed to elucidate a particular matter clearly. For the reader interested in Melanchthon, this work offers a demonstration of how he applied his zeal for the gospel (i. e., the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone) and desire to make Christ and his benefits known permeates everything to which he turned his hand. Instead of presenting Melanchthon as a man of contrasts, I endeavor to show a Melanchthon who was guided by a clear principle and consistent scholarly method. The reader will find comprehensive references to Melanchthon’s works in the Corpus Reformatorum, Melanchthons Breifweschel, and other key references and secondary literature. For the reader interested in patristic reception, this study contributes to recent efforts to examine the role of patristic authority in the sixteenth century by identifying Melanchthon’s citations of Greek patristic sources in particular. As a leading philologist and theologian of the sixteenth century, Melanchthon was not only capable of drinking deeply from the font of ever-more available Greek patristic sources but he also eagerly sought them out. A large part of this effort was to identify the most ancient orthodox proclamations of the Gospel within the universal Church and to root the evangelical reforms within that tradition. Wherever possible, this work documents Melanchthon’s citation of a Cappadocian Father to references in the modern apparatuses of patristic sources as well as the patristic sources available in the sixteenth century. Finally, for the reader interested in the debates of the Reformation, this work adds to the growing illustrations of sixteenth-century appeals to authority that transcend simplistic reductions to “scripture vs. tradition.” In this way, my work is indebted to and helps magnify the foundational insights of Peter Fraenkel, Heinz Scheible, Irena Backus, and Timothy J. Wengert, whose careful scholarship has revealed that the appeal to the sufficiency of Scripture and the patristic tradition were not mutually exclusive but were instead mutually enriching.

The Cappadocian Fathers Identified The modern definition of “the Cappadocians” includes three fourth-century bishops of Asia Minor : St. Basil of Caesarea (“The Great”), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (“The Theologian”) and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Modern scholarship has spoken of a “Cappadocian theology” or at least a “Cappadocian solution” to the Christological and Trinitarian crises of the fourth century. Historically, however, this synthesis of the three Cappadocians was not always articulated. That is, though the three were counted among the illustrious sons of Cappadocia, the term was only recently applied to define any particular ideology. “Cappadocian theology” was never part of the medieval and renaissance reception as a par-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Fathers Identified

17

ticular school of thought, at least not as we understand and use the term today. This fact does not mean, however, that their personal relationships and theological contributions were unknown. Even the most rudimentary students of church history from the fifth to the sixteenth century knew that Basil and Gregory Nazianzen had studied together in Athens and were co-laborers against the Arian and Semi-Arians in the fourth century ; they also knew that Gregory of Nyssa was the younger brother of Basil. Despite this known relationship among the three, the “theological clustering” of Cappadocian names that occurred in the medieval and renaissance reception consisted primarily of two, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. Though Gregory of Nyssa was a significant figure in the fourth century — known not only as an imperially appointed “normative bishop” after the Council of Constantinople in 381 but also for his ascetic and speculative theology — his subsequent reception was little more than that of an hagiographic figure. A majority of Gregory of Nyssa’s work was either unknown or attributed to Basil. While Gregory of Nyssa has a smaller (but not insignificant) role to play in the sixteenth century, Melanchthon’s own understanding of “Cappadocian” theology (and as affirmed in the ancient church histories) warrants adding another Cappadocian Father to our study : Gregory Thaumaturgus (a.k.a., Gregory the Wonderworker and Gregory of Neocaesarea). We will see that this Gregory — the Apostle to Cappadocia — was known to have converted Macrina the Elder, the maternal grandmother of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Melanchthon accepted the testimony that the two brothers learned the pure, apostolic faith from Gregory Thaumaturgus through their grandmother and nurses. Thereby, the three provided an essential connection to the ancient, apostolic faith. Further, Gregory Thaumaturgus’s own theological works (especially the Creed attached to his name) would prove very useful to Melanchthon against the anti-Trinitarians. Throughout the medieval and renaissance periods, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen were paired as exemplary defenders of Nicene theology and, to those who studied Greek, exemplars of polished rhetoric and grammar. The bond of this pairing was made stronger by the fact that medieval and renaissance scholars were either unaware of or played down the now commonly acknowledged conflicts that occasionally emerged between them; such as Basil’s frustration that Gregory Nazianzen refused to take possession of the episcopal see at Sasima that Basil had arranged for him, or Gregory Nazianzen’s criticism of Basil’s “economy of words” concerning the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. This ignorance no doubt mirrors the image of a united front that the two theologians themselves presented to their enemies and allies. For this study, the main concern then is not whom we understand the “Cappadocians” to include or what defines “Cappadocian theology.” Rather, our focus is Melanchthon’s understanding of the Cappadocian image and theology

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

18

Introduction

in particular and the medieval and renaissance reception in general. Throughout this study, I have noted when modern scholarship has identified certain works attributed to the Cappaodians as spurious. However, this correction does not fundamentally affect our analysis, since Melanchthon and his contemporaries should not be judged by twenty-first century standards.

The Serpent and the Cross The final image we might consider to frame this study is that of Melanchthon’s own coat of arms: a serpent entwined around a cross. This example helps to illustrate Melanchthon’s own articulation of the relationship between theology and philosophy (i. e., all other learning). This image also offers a frame for representing Melanchthon’s use of the certain patristic and philosophical testimonies to affirm and explain the gospel; i. e., to make Christ and his benefits known. Despite its initial sinister association (Genesis 3), the serpent appears elsewhere in Scripture as an image of salvation; viz., the brass serpent (Numbers 21:8), and Jesus’ self-referential comparison to the brass serpent (John 3:14 – 15). Echoing its association with cunning and wisdom (see also Matthew 10:16 – 18), the Hellenic world likewise affiliated the serpent with accurate diagnosis and healing. Ancient Greece has left us the Staff of Asclepius (associated with the art of healing) and the Caeduceus (the messenger’s staff of Hermes, associated with commerce as well as the occult). Moreover, the crozier (or paterissa) of eastern Orthodox bishops often features two entwined serpents, reminiscent of the brass serpent created by Moses. Sometime in the 1520s, Melanchthon chose the serpent entwined around the cross as his personal coat-of-arms. I can think of no more appropriate image to help frame a discussion of the life and works of Melanchthon since it symbolized both his emphasis on the distinction between the Law and the Gospel and the necessary unity between the Academy and the Church. He argued persistently that the best of philosophy and the natural sciences could be joined with Christian theology, properly understood, under the cross of Christ. One must be cautious, however, to understand the relationship between the cross (i. e., the Gospel) and the serpent (i. e., philosophy) because it is a failure to do so which has led many to discount Melanchthon’s insight. Melanchthon, as with Martin Luther, repeatedly emphasized the necessity of properly distinguishing between the Gospel (i. e., the promises; the free and unmerited gifts of divine grace through Jesus Christ alone) and philosophy (i. e., those pursuits which are within the natural powers of humanity ; such as ethics, law, the various philosophical schools, the exploration and explanation of the natural world). An individual who does not understand his or her inherent human frailty and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Serpent and the Cross

19

limitations does not understand the true nature of humanity as a whole. Anyone who promotes a philosophy of radical autonomy, of inherent manifest destiny, or of limitless boundaries (no matter how “purpose driven”) stands outside of the Word of God. The soul blinded by sin thinks only of the majesty and scope of its innate powers; the Law reveals just how weak human powers are in relation to what is commanded. The Law reveals human sinfulness, breaks human vanity, and compels humanity towards the Gospel. The Gospel alone reveals the mercy and unconditional love of God through Christ alone. Any theologians who does not understand and maintain the Law-Gospel dialectic no longer speaks for Christ. Only a theologian of the cross can correctly diagnose our human condition and prescribe our return to that which brings eternal life. Because of the Law-Gospel distinction, Melanchthon affirmed the necessity of the Academy for the Church but provided the means by which a theologian may avoid confusing philosophy for the Gospel (something for which he sharply criticized Origen, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas). Again, in harmony with Luther, the emphasis in all matters must be was Christum treibet, that which brings Christ to the fore. Melanchthon’s own expression of this value was Christum cognoscere, beneficia eius cognoscere, to know Christ is to know his benefits. This solus Christus is the ultimate authority for all theological discussions. It is always Christ — his deeds and his promises — who rules over both any singular or collective authority (e. g., the individual interpreter, papal authority, or the consensus antiquitatis). Insisting that the core Christian conviction is the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone is part and parcel of this effort. Through this doctrine, we are reminded that humanity is saved only by grace which is apprehended only through trust in the promises God made through Christ alone. It is equally important to understand that there is in Melanchthon’s work a distinction — not a separation — between the Law and Gospel, between philosophy and theology. That is, while it is essential not to confuse the Law for the Gospel or philosophy for theology, the Church has need of philosophy (again, broadly understood) in order to help proclaim and promote the Gospel. For our purposes, this is revealed in Melanchthon’s efforts to mine the Christian tradition and classical authors to explain and elevate the Gospel. This means that when Melanchthon examined the Scripture, he did so in order to find passages that would drive us to Christ and his promises. This means that when Melanchthon examined the patristic tradition, he did so not in order to discern any “patristic consensus,” but to discern the purer writers (scriptores puriores) of the patristic tradition (i. e., those who preached the Gospel most clearly). This means that when Melanchthon examined the philosophical schools (Platonists, Peripatetics, Stoics, etc.), he did so not in order to find a systematic framework

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

20

Introduction

upon which one could hang a Christian philosophy but to find ways of using philosophy to explain the Gospel. It is only by recognizing this distinction in Melanchthon’s work that we can perceive harmony and unity when other scholars have fallen into confusion and false conclusions. Through this distinction, we can correctly perceive that Melanchthon’s understanding of the Gospel did not lead to a personal faith radically dependent upon direct divine inspiration alone, as manifested by the Anabaptists. Through this distinction, we can correctly perceive that Melanchthon’s emphasis to “know Christ and his benefits” by no means meant rejecting tradition or philosophy, as post-Enlightenment Protestantism has often been so hard pressed to understand. Through this distinction, we can correctly perceive that Melanchthon shared the principles of Christian Humanism with Erasmus but also explain why he was highly critical of Erasmus’ attempt to create a Christian philosophy. By the same token, Melanchthon was equally dismissive of Scholasticism. Through this distinction, we can understand how Melanchthon both praised and modeled the value of drinking deeply from the fonts of the Christian tradition while simultaneously being so critical of its most prominent authorities, such as Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas. Both Melanchthon’s desire to discern scriptores puriores and affirmation of the necessary unity of Academy and Church were the two main principles that attracted him to the works of the Cappadocian Fathers. These highly educated individuals, each a master of the Greek rhetorical and philosophical tradition, turned their hands to promoting the union of classical learning and Christian Scripture. Their sermons are models of rhetorical form, their theological writings are rich in literary allusions, and their biblical exegesis reveals a profound commitment to using the best that classical literary skills can offer in order to explore the divine mysteries. Melanchthon’s appeal was as personal and it was professional. Let us now turn to observe Melanchthon at work as a philologist, pedagogue, and theologian and discover his tenacity and consistency in revealing Christ and his benefits.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Chapter 1: Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

Like the Greek dichotomy of body-spirit, the Renaissance and Reformation divisions in Protestantism have proved fruitful, but at the same time disastrous. In Melanchthon, these divisions were a living unity. He cannot be explained in terms of either, for he transcends both. This is his greatness. This is his tragedy.1 – Clyde Manschreck Language and literature are from heaven.2

– Philip Melanchthon 3

History is the key to all the sciences, not least of all theology.

1.

– Philip Melanchthon

Introduction

This chapter will root Melanchthon’s appeals to the Cappadocians within the larger framework of his understanding of patristic authority. I will argue that Melanchthon appealed to the Fathers in general and the Cappadocians in particular in order to ground his own understanding of biblical authority, the role of tradition, the relationship between philosophy and theology, and the importance of education. As these themes are fundamental to Melanchthon’s theology, a discussion of these topics is naturally not exclusive to this chapter alone. By identifying the nature of these core principles here, however, this chapter will serve as the springboard into subsequent discussions. The first two sections of this chapter will discuss the historiography related to both the relationship between Humanism and the Reformation and Melanchthon’s understanding of patristic authority. The final section will then move to a discussion of key terms in Melanchthon, namely : topics dealing with the authority of Scripture, the role 1 Clyde Manschreck, Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer (New York: Abingdon Press, 1958), 13. 2 Ratio discendi, 1522 (CR 20, 702 – 4). 3 Inaugural Address in Wittenberg, De corrigendis adulescentiae studiis, 1518 (CR 11, 18).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

24

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

of rhetoric, and the authority of tradition (especially concepts of scriptores puriores, the consensus antiquitatis, and a “theological grammar”). In several cases, we will see how the Cappadocians function as historical exemplars for his theology. The sixteenth-century Reformation did not create the religious and social unrest of the age, so much as it inherited and contributed to a debate already raging over the proper relationship between philosophy, classical literature, and theology as well as the interpretation and authority of historical sources. The Humanist zeal to return ad fontes — “to the sources!” — was simultaneously at odds with the Scholastic practice of the day and dependent upon the earliest Scholastics. The intellectual conflict of this time was not a debate over whether to use classical and patristic sources; rather, it was a debate over how to use classical and patristic sources. Moreover, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the Humanists and Protestant Reformers valued the Bible more than their Scholastic opponents. Both considered the Bible as authoritative for all thought and praxis. The point of contention was over how to interpret Christian Scripture in light of particular readings of the Fathers, literary criticism, and theology. The debates of this time, then, were not simply a matter of Scripture versus tradition. They were instead a conflict of traditions around particular theological questions; each tradition was based on a particular interpretation of Scripture and with its own collection of patristic citations. Ultimately, the conflict between Scholastic and Humanist (and later, with humanist-trained Reformers) was the struggle between different methodologies used to approach biblical and historical texts. The Scholastics preferred an abstracted, highly specialized metalanguage employed within a near exclusively dialectical framework; the highest value was placed on harmonizing and synthesizing the theological and philosophical content within various texts, regardless of their specific historical contexts. The Humanists, however, employed a critical-philological approach to texts, one that was highly influenced by the attempt to understand the immediate historical context of a work, and — using a widerange of rhetorical forms — preferred to present their ideas in orations and treatises. The highest value was the ability to capture the specific and historical meaning of an author through an analysis of grammar, tone, and literary structure. Finally, while I have situated the nature of this conflict within differing methodologies, this is not to imply that these differences were merely methodological. Their conflicts were bitter and their theological and philosophical conclusions were at times in fundamental conflict. In order to illuminate better this understanding of the crisis (or perhaps we should say “crises”) of the sixteenth century, I will discuss the intellectual milieu that formed Philip Melanchthon’s education and informed Melanchthon’s values and those of his colleagues.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Patristic Revival of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

2.

25

The Patristic Revival of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

There is a temptation to give too much credence to the Humanist polemic that the light of the Fathers had nearly gone out during the middle ages. By the late twelfth-century, a new systematic theology based on dialectics (Scholasticism) came to dominate. According to these Humanists, whatever the original benefits of Scholasticism, its rule over western academic theology quickly became absolute and tyrannical. What suffered most was knowledge of the Fathers, since their wisdom was cut off by an ignorance of the classical languages and a loss of sources. What patristic sources remained were either filtered through a foreign, artificial theological method or reduced to florilegia and legends filled with apocryphal hagiography. The rich rhetorical heritage of the Fathers had been straight-jacketed into the narrow and confined methods of Scholasticism. The previous description, however, is misleading. While there was indeed a high point in the availability of patristic texts in the sixteenth century (relative to the immediately preceding generations) and although the effects of this revival were not initially welcomed by many Scholastic theologians, it does not follow that there was ever a general lack of interest in the Church Fathers. It should be remembered that Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Duns Scotus, and other Scholastic masters attempted to provide a synthesis of the Fathers in their works. Further, no appeal to Scripture in the middle ages was complete without reference to the Glossa ordinaria, with its collection of patristic glosses to biblical texts.4 Everyone agreed that the Fathers should be read; what could not be agreed upon was how the Fathers should be read.

2.1

On Humanism and Scholasticism

A short review of the tension between the Scholastic and Humanist traditions is essential for this study, since it both illuminates the nature of this struggle within the university curriculum (something to which Melanchthon made a direct and lasting contribution) as well as helps avoid oversimplification of the issue. To understand the extent to which the Scholastic enterprise was aided by the improvement of Latin form and accessibility to classical and patristic sources; to appreciate the extent to which the Humanists still leaned upon the pedagogical 4 An essential survey of the role of the Fathers in the history of Western Christianity is found in Irena Backus, ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Parts one and two of the first volume have insightful essays on the role of the Church Fathers throughout the medieval tradition and sources, including canon law, the glossa ordinaria, the Legenda aurea, Lombard, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

26

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

methods of the Scholastics (especially dialectic) in order to achieve their goals; and to grasp that the conflict between the two was over how best to describe and manifest the wisdom of the past is to refuse to cast our examination in starkly black and white terms. The Humanists’ concern for bonae litterae (“good letters,” which included grammar and literature) engendered a revised approach to biblical and patristic texts, which in turn provided a methodology for those sympathetic to reform (whether in theological practice and doctrine or the educational system, legal code, and the visual arts). At the same time, this humanistic endeavor was hardly uniform in articulation. By limiting ourselves to this understanding of Humanism, we may incorporate the fact that Scholastic texts are rich in patristic citation and that many dyed-in-the-wool sixteenth-century Scholastics edited patristic sources. The distinction between “Scholastic” and “Humanist” is largely a distinction in both methodology and style. Most of the scholarly literature is concerned with how much one may ascribe either continuity or discontinuity to the two intellectual traditions. The work of Paul Oskar Kristeller has been insightful since his principal thesis is that there is continuity between the medieval philosophical tradition and the Humanism of the Renaissance. Part of the confusion and difficulty in discerning Scholastic from Humanist lies in the definitions employed by scholars. Lewis Spitz alluded to this when he posed the following questions: should “Humanism” be equated with an anthropocentrism? If so, then it “cannot be applied very generally to the Italian and much less to the German humanism. Does Humanism mean a mere interest in classical antiquity?” If so, it cannot account for the many medieval intellectuals who were interested in antiquity but in no way can be called “humanists.” Spitz argues that “Humanism is not merely an interest in classical and Christian antiquity, it was [rather] a certain way of looking at antiquity.”5 In Humanism’s relation to Scholasticism, Spitz affirms: Humanism was not a system of thought designed to challenge Scholasticism on its own metaphysical grounds. Rather, it directed attention away from the speculative concerns of Scholasticism toward immediate problems arising out of life and experience. These attacks … were often upon the dialectical form, the academic monopoly of teaching positions, and the neglect of vital areas of interest, not a philosophical payment in kind.6

The most satisfactory account of the relationship between Scholasticism and Humanism is the work of Erika Rummel.7 She has been adept at both taking into 5 Spitz, Religious Renaissance, 5. 6 Spitz, Religious Renaissance, 7 – 8. 7 See Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Patristic Revival of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

27

account the cautions of Kristeller, Oberman, and Overfield (which encourage a deconstruction of established models) while also being able to articulate clearly the real and prolonged antagonism between the two throughout the fifteenth and into the sixteenth centuries. Rummel shows that the markers used to distinguish Scholastic from Humanist employed in earlier scholarly literature — such as the style of Latin employed by a particular author or the relations between the two groups within university faculties — are no longer fruitful. For instance, the separation between Humanist and Scholastic based on Latin style fades after 1530, when classical Latin became the commonly accepted standard of writing.8 Rummel suggests convincingly that scholars now search for the distinction between Scholastic and Humanist from their respective preferred methodologies: Scholastics favored syllogism, dialectics, and tightly structured disquisitions arranged in numbered points or captioned paraphrases. Humanists preferred the informal presentation of an essay or an oration, favored rhetorical devices of similes, metaphors, and historical examples. The training and style of the protagonists are the least reliable indicators; attitude and approach are more telltale. The scholar may discern further based on the importance a writer placed on a number of key issues: 1) the value of classical education for Christians, 2) the importance of style in philosophical and theological treatises, and 3) the role of philology in interpreting Scripture.9 A review of the literature offers many vivid and colorful illustrations of the struggle between Scholastics and Humanists.10 The revival of the studia hu(Harvard: Harvard University, 1995) and The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000). 8 Rummel, Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 11. 9 Rummel, Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 12 and 14. For Trapp, see note 10. James Hankins, cited by Charles Stinger, described the Scholastic approach to reading classical and patristic work this way : “the form of reading that prevailed in the medieval university setting meant seeing texts as a set of propositions that could be made subject to syllogistic analysis and thereby incorporated into textbooks systematized for the professional training of jurist, physicians, and theologians. Such sententiae tended inevitably to be abstracted out of their original context, but even more consequential was the reading for this purpose regarded authors as auctoritates, that is as purveyors of logically deducible or definable statements. The Humanists . . . did not read in this way. Instead they combined the older late classical and medieval tradition of ‘doctrinal reading,’ which perceived texts as authors meant to teach and instruct both by dicta and example, with a new approach, ‘imitative reading.’ This involved reading not only for the purpose of emulating the style of admired ancient authors, but more fundamentally to absorb what the Humanists saw as the ethos of the author,” see Charles Stinger, “Italian Renaissance Learning and the Church Fathers,” The Reception of the Church Fathers, 474; citing J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 18 – 26. 10 See, among many, Jacob Locher, Dialog (1496) Urbanus Rhegius, Opusculum de dignitate sacerdotum (Augsburg, 1519); Otto Brunfels, Confutatio sophistices et quaestionum curiosarum (1520); and Erasmus, Antibarbari (1520). These and others are also mentioned in the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

28

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

manitatis (especially philology and history) both as a corrective to Scholastic excess and as a field of study in its own right created a most contentious environment in the universities, cathedral schools, and monastic orders of Europe. The first voices critical of Scholastic excess and calls for reform actually came from men who were themselves “Schoolmen”; e. g., Jean Gerson (1363 – 1429) and Robert Grosseteste (ca. 1175 – 1253). Many Humanists would later read the works of these two men and gleefully repeat their criticisms. From the Humanist point of view, the conflict was a struggle between the ancient method vs. the new. From the Scholastic point of view, the struggle was between the unrefined pagan vs. the refined and explicitly Christian. Those who encouraged the study of Greek were accused of neo-paganism, and the call to study the Old Testament in Hebrew was met with charges of “Judaizing.” In the major universities of the time — Paris, Oxford, Leipzig, Padua — Humanists were barred from the higher faculties; when Humanists could get positions it was only as a “Poet” in the Arts faculty. Humanist theologians were charged with “not speaking correctly” that is, failing to use the highly technical Scholastic modus loquendi.11 2.1.1 Christian Humanist and the Reformation Second, a quick examination of the relationship between Humanism and the Reformation is necessary, because Melanchthon is often placed at the crux of the relationship between the two. Given certain predispositions of the reviewer either toward Humanism (and away from the developments of magisterial Protestantism in general and Lutheranism in particular) or toward the Reformation (and away from the Erasmianism) Melanchthon fairs very poorly at the hands of both. More recent scholarship, to which this book hopes to make a contribution, has shown the inadequacy of this oversimplified relationship between Humanism and the Reformation. Further, instead of trying to peg Melanchthon either as a Humanist or a Reformer, this study attempts to show Melanchthon as one particular (and quite successful) synthesis between an unapologetic Lutheran theology and an unbowed dedication to examining the classical and patristic tradition to promote and defend the Christian faith. That is, Melanchthon should be examined according to his own conclusions and not how well or poorly he conforms to either Erasmus or Luther. scholarly literature, see Rummel, Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 47, 83, 85, & 111 and Maria Grossman, Humanism in Wittenberg, 1485 – 1517 (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1975), 49. 11 Alan Perreiah has examined the unique “logical-metalanguage” of the Scholastics (as opposed to “object-language” preferred by Humanists) and the Humanistic criticism of this metalanguage. Essentially, the highly specialized vocabulary employed by Scholasticism — and the refusal of Humanists to employ such categories — ensured that Scholastics and Humanists literally did not speak the same language, see “Humanistic Critiques of Scholastic Dialectic,” Sixteenth Century Journal 13 (1982): 3 – 22.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Patristic Revival of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

29

The purpose of this section is to elucidate how the intellectual principles grounding Humanism (in particular, the importance of history and a critical but certainly not dismissive approach to tradition) informed the theological methods of the Reformation. It will then be possible to provide a detailed discussion of how Melanchthon incorporated those values into his work. An attempt to trace the development of the Reformation back to Humanism has its merits, as there is no doubt that the Humanist reforms in education and literary criticism and certainly their calls for the moral reform of the Church established the framework within which Protestantism would make its appeal for theological reform. In the simple formula of one scholar : “Without Humanism, there would be no Reformation.”12 The extent to which Humanism was an ally of the early Reformation has been artfully examined by Leif Grane.13 He demonstrates that Humanists looked upon Luther as “Martinus noster” in the early controversies, because they viewed Luther’s struggles as synonymous with their own. Humanist circles throughout Germany embraced Luther and defended him against his harshest critics because he was a dynamic and effective vehicle for the longawaited reform. Also, this early symbiosis between Humanism and the Reformation cannot be separated from the nascent German self-identity developing at this time; note the engraving by Hans Holbein entitled “Luther as German Hercules,” 1523. And yet, despite these similarities, no direct causal relationship between Humanism and the Reformation can be established. There were many Humanists who did not become Protestant Reformers. In order to account for this fact, modern scholars began to speak of a split between Humanism proper (with its primary interest in the literary analysis of classical and historical texts) and “biblical Humanism,” which focused more on Scripture than literature.14 As a result, one could say that Humanists were interested in the moral reform of the laity and clergy but, unlike the Protestant reformers, left theological formulations alone. Humanism created the intellectual milieu which allowed the Reformation to take root, but — while some Humanists became Protestant Reformers — Humanism did not cause the Reformation. 12 Bernd Moeller, “Die deutschen Humanisten und die Anfänge der Reformation,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 70 (1959): 46 – 61, esp. 59, cited in Erika Rummel, The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000), 3. 13 Leif Grane, Martinus Noster : Luther in the Early German Reform Movement, 1518 – 1521 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994) and Helmar Junghans, Luther und die Humanisten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). 14 See Lewis Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963) and Cornelis Augustijn, “Humanisten auf dem Scheideweg zwischen Luther und Erasmus,” Humanismus und Reformation: Martin Luther und Erasmus von Rotterdam in der Konflikten ihrer Zeit, ed. O. H. Pesch (Munich: Schnell & Steiner, 1985), 119 – 34.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

30

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

The relationship between Erasmus and Luther has traditionally been used to defend the model of distinguishing between Humanism proper and biblical Humanism. Erasmus, the “prince of Humanists,” was a harsh critic of many clerical abuses and called for reform. Yet, when the Reformation broke out, he clearly distanced himself from Luther, even going so far as to engage him in a fierce debate over the Freedom of the Will. Luther, while drawing on many humanistic methods and values (such as an appeal to history and learning biblical languages to improve exegesis), charged Erasmus with being a skeptic as well as cowardice for hiding in his ivory tower, while also sharply criticizing his theological conclusions.15 Dividing Humanism from Protestantism by using Erasmus and Luther provides a clean line of demarcation. Nonetheless, it is a deceptive one, since it separates Luther and others from the larger intellectual milieu. First of all, this distinction is made based on a highly restricted definition of “Humanists.” Following Paul Oskar Kristeller, Timothy Wengert writes: [A Humanist was an individual] interested in languages, rhetoric, history, poetics, and moral philosophy who often taught on the fringes of European university arts faculties and in the newly emerging Latin schools of the empire. Such scholars were concerned for good letters (bonae litterae) and rallied to the cry ad fontes, ‘to the sources.’ Under such a definition not only Melanchthon and Erasmus but even Martin Luther qualifies as a humanists, or, at least in the case of Luther, friends of humanists.16

The conflict between Erasmus and Luther on the freedom of the will is important, as it did effect a separation between the two men which impacted the relationship between the established Humanist movement and the burgeoning Reformation movement. Yet, it was but one point of contact between the two movements. The debate says more about the particular theological dispute between Erasmus and Luther than about the movements for which they are alleged to be the sole representatives. 15 Luther implicitly criticized Erasmus by praising Augustine as a model theologian over Jerome. Luther argued that a knowledge of languages is a fine thing but, in itself, it is not sufficient for biblical exegesis. After all, Jerome knew Greek and Hebrew but in the ability to clarify the clear sense and consistent meaning of Scripture he was far surpassed by Augustine, whose knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was rudimentary. See Grossman, Humanism at Wittenberg, 82. 16 Timothy J. Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philipp Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam (New York: Oxford, 1998), 9 – 10. The same point is made by Clyde Manschreck (The Quiet Reformer, 56 – 57), “If ‘humanism’ means a return to ad fontes and a revival of classical languages, ancient philosophy, and early Christianity, then Melanchthon and Luther were ‘humanists.’ If ‘humanism’ means the consuming desire to master all disciplines, place all things under rational scrutiny, and envisioning man as the center of the universe – then Melanchthon and Luther were not humanists – they were perhaps even anti-humanists.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Patristic Revival of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

31

Erika Rummel has good grounds for stating that scholars err when they make the separation of Humanism from the Reformation in the conflict between Erasmus and Luther in the early 1520s over free will.17 Rummel writes “Such opinions give undue weight to Erasmus’ views and put the wrong accent on the dilemma facing humanists in the 1520s.” She notes that Erasmus, while an enduring (though imperfect) master of philology, was only for the briefest time a trend-setter in theological debates. Most Humanists did not see themselves has having to choose between Erasmus and Luther. Instead, they construed their choice as between professions (literature or theology) and between confessions (Roman, Lutheran, or Reformed). To assume otherwise is to persist in the faulty evaluation that the Humanism and the Reformation are incompatible.18 There has indeed been an unfortunate tendency to see the two as mutually exclusive. Either one was a Humanist or a Protestant Reformer. Yet, there were many Humanists who were Protestant (Zwingli, Bucer, and Melanchthon) but had different ideas from Luther. There were many reformers (Cardinals Contarini, Sadoleto, and Xim¦nez, theologians Jean Cassander and Johannes Gropper) whose Humanism — while putting them at odds with many Roman Catholic theologians — never prompted them to become Protestant. This view of the relationship between Humanism and the Protestant Reformation is certainly less clear cut, but that is its virtue since it more accurately reflects the selfunderstanding of many theologians on all sides in the sixteenth century. In this way, one may avoid the strained explanations of Luther’s (supposed grudging) sympathy for the Humanist enterprise or the fact that until the outbreak of bitter hostilities, many Humanists were nurtured from the coffers of the papacy and even continued to exercise influence (albeit limited) in the Curia. This brings us to a further limitation of the traditional divide between Humanist and Reformer : it cannot account for the many Humanists who — while indebted to Erasmus — did not consider themselves “Erasmians” (at least, in the theological debates) nor the many Reformers who — while indebted to Luther — did not consider themselves “Lutheran.”19 The Erasmus-Luther model cannot account for the humanistically-trained Reformed theologians Wolfgang Capito, Johannes Oecolampadius, or Martin Bucer and much less the work of Melanchthon, whose credentials as both a Humanist and Lutheran are impeccable. Erasmus and Luther are giants of the era and their mutual indebtedness and differences are worthy of study. Again, Wengert offers a salient observation, “Erasmus . . . played a critical role in the intellectual development [of humanisttrained Reformers] — only rarely as theologian and philosopher but always as 17 Rummel, Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 2 and 4. 18 Rummel, Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 129 – 30. 19 See Rummel, Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 128 and 130.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

32

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

linguist and rhetorician.”20 Therefore, we must say that both Erasmus and Luther are important representatives of Humanism and Protestantism, yet neither can be taken as the sine qua non of either movement. Returning again to the insights of Erika Rummel we see that generational differences among Humanists determined in part their reaction to the Reformation. Those born between 1450 – 1470 were of advanced age during the crucial years of the Reformation (1517 – 1521) and so a conversion was unlikely. Those born between 1470 – 1490 faced a most difficult decision, as it was not yet clear what the outcome would be, i. e., if Protestantism would gain any official ecclesiastical or political standing. Those born after 1490, however, had the prospect of careers in Protestant cities and, therefore, could make decisions not burdened by the ballast of the traditional scholastic education. Rummel argues that the personal stories of the generations born on the cusp between Humanism and the Reformation must be more closely evaluated: though they may express sympathy for Lutheran or Reformed movements, perhaps 1) their livelihoods were drawn from benefices or patrons loyal to Rome or 2) they were disturbed by the social chaos unleashed by the Reformation. Wolfgang Capito (who, from 1519 to 1523, was chancellor to the Archbishop of Mainz) and the esteemed Nuremberg scholar Willibald Pirkheimer are respective representatives of Rummel’s insight. In addition to generational differences, geography is also important, as one must ask whether the principality or city endorsed the Reformation or threatened exile, confiscation of property, or death.21

3.

Melanchthon: “Between” Humanism and Reform?

Scholarly literature has placed the yoke of its faulty understanding of Humanism and the Reformation on the shoulders of Melanchthon. As a result, neither Melanchthon nor scholars have been well served. Attempts to place Melanchthon rigidly into either one column or the other have judged him deficient in both. In the hands of most scholars, Melanchthon was an eager but naive Humanist who “converted” to the Reformation through contact with Luther’s dynamic personality and vibrant ideas. Though converted, he was unable to leave behind completely his old Humanist habits and, therefore, is a less dependable representative of the Evangelical movement. Whether conscious or not, this harsh presentation is based on a negative theological judgment concerning Melanchthon’s participation in the intra-Lutheran controversies which arose after Lu20 See Wengert, Human Freedom, 10. 21 The information in this paragraph is taken from Rummel, Scholastic-Humanist Debate, 130 – 32. She is, in part, correcting the work of Lewis Spitz.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon: “Between” Humanism and Reform?

33

ther’s death. Melanchthon’s alleged inability to “decide” between Erasmus and Luther (or between Evangelical or Reformed; or between Evangelical and Roman Catholic) is seen as a character flaw in Melanchthon’s learned and sincere yet timid and pleasing nature. Others have shined the other side of coin, praising Melanchthon’s alleged conciliatory and ecumenical nature as foreshadowing the pan-Protestant idealism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.22 This historiographical problem is founded, in part, in the biography of Joachim Camerarius, one of Melanchthon’s closest friends In order to defend Melanchthon’s legacy after his death against the ad hominem attacks levied by the GnesioLutherans, Camerarius wrote a biography of Melanchthon in 1566. The GnesioLutherans had already published some of Melanchthon’s letters (especially his letter to Christoph von Carlowitz, in which he complains of Luther’s hotheadedness in order to portray Melanchthon as an insincere friend to Luther and 22 Melanchthon’s legacy was also damaged when a group of theologians led by Melanchthon’s son-in-law Caspar Peucer (who were sometimes called “Philippists”) used Melanchthon’s articulation of the Lord’s Supper to emphasize a more spiritual understanding of the real presence of Christ. Peucer was also highly selective in the works of Melanchthon he published, so as to buttress Peucer’s own interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. Because of their more conciliatory approach to the Reformed tradition, these Philippists provided the “Q.E.D.” for the Gnesio-Lutheran charges that Melanchthon himself had betrayed the pure Lutheran articulation of the real presence. Melanchthon, who died in 1560, was of course unable to defend himself from those who claimed to be his followers. For a more detailed discussion of this time, see Timothy Wengert, “The Scope and Contents of Philip Melanchthon’s Opera omnia, Wittenberg, 1562 – 1564,” ARG 88 (1997): 57 – 76; Timothy Wengert, “‘With Friends Like This . . .’: The Biography of Philip Melanchthon by Joachim Camerarius,” The Rhetorics of Life-Writing in Early Modern Europe: Forms of Biography from Cassandra Fedele to Louis XIV (Ann Arbor : University of Michigan, 1995), 115 – 31. A most insightful article on the dependance of Melanchthon’s students — whether they remained friends or became foes in the subsequent theological controversies — on his method is found in Robert Kolb, “Philip’s Foes, but Followers Nonetheless,” The Harvest of Humanism in Central Europe: Essays in Honor of Lewis W. Spitz, ed. M. Fleischer (St. Louis: Concordia, 1992), 159 – 78. For the English-speaking world, the image of the ever-vacillating Melanchthon was established in Book Five of James Benign Bossuet, The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches (Dublin: Coyne, 1829), 168 – 202. For scholars who repeat the Gnesio-Lutheran charge against Melanchthon as a synergistic pussy-footer, see Friedrich Bente, Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia, 1965). For those who interpret into Melanchthon a pan-Protestant ecumenism, see Adolf von Harnack, “Philipp Melanchthon,” Die Antike: Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur des klassischen Altertums 7 (1931): 181 – 95; a criticism of the tendency to over-emphasize Melanchthon’s irenicism is found in Timothy Wengert, “The Day Philip Melanchthon Got Mad,” Lutheran Quarterly 5 (1991): 419 – 33 and Ralph Keen, “Melanchthon and His Roman Catholic Opponents,” Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1998): 419 – 29. For the effect the conflict over Melanchthon’s identity had on the development of Lutheranism in America, see H. Ashley Hall, “The Influence of Philipp Melanchthon on Nineteenth-Century American Protestantism,” Melanchthon und Europa, vol. 2, Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten, ed. Günter Frank and Kees Meerhoff (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2002), 325 – 40.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

34

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

a distorter of Lutheran identity.23 In response, Camerarius portrayed Melanchthon as peace-loving (not timid), temperate (not “pussy-footing”), and discreet (not deceptive). The net effect, however, has been to perpetuate an image of Melanchthon that leads to a highly bifurcated judgment. Current research, then, has come to different conclusions concerning Melanchthon’s role in the relationship between Humanism and the Reformation: did he blend the former into the latter ; did he straddle the two; or did he finally subjugate one to the other? Manschreck, Grossman, and Rummel see Melanchthon as the personified union of two naturally harmonious movements.24 Wilhelm Mauer saw the two movements as essentially distinct, and therefore, only harnessed together in a fitful union through much personal effort. He argues that Melanchthon was only later — after initial naivety and subsequent struggle — able to win grudging acceptance from Luther for his brand of Evangelical Humanism. Others, such as Robert Stupperich and Siegfried Weidenhofer, assume that Melanchthon stayed a Humanist all his life, since he seems never to have abandoned Erasmus.25 I prefer an interpretation that sees Melanchthon as a personified union of the two movements, as it avoids the fundamental error of defining Melanchthon’s legacy by subjugating him to either Erasmus or Luther. It is essential to remember Paul Kristeller’s insight that the Humanist movement was united not necessarily by theological conclusions but by a scholarly methods.19 This insight has born much fruit in Melanchthon studies through the work of Heinz Scheible and Timothy Wengert, as both scholars have initiated a more exacting examination of Melanchthon’s relationship to both Luther and Erasmus. The result has been illuminating and encourages further study. Instead of portraying Melanchthon “between” Luther and Erasmus, their work shows Melanchthon “alongside” both men.20 They show that Melanchthon praised Erasmus often as a philologist but rarely (if ever) as a theologian. In fact, his exegetical debates with Erasmus came early and were both fierce and enduring. Scheible and Wengert show that Melanchthon worked alongside Luther as a loyal companion and avoid the loaded label of “friendship.” By seeing Melanchthon and Luther as colleagues instead of friends, we see that their occasional differences never necessitated the deception or repressed hostility imagined by later generations.

23 MBW 5139/CR 6, 880. 24 Manschreck, The Quiet Reformer, 13; Grossman, Humanism at Wittenberg, 85; Rummel, Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 134. 25 A more thorough analysis of the literature related to the question is discussed in Wengert, Human Freedom, 8 – 10.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon: “Between” Humanism and Reform?

3.1

35

Melanchthon and Erasmus

Scheible speculates that Melanchthon, as a young and talented philologist, would have become familiar with Erasmus’s works quite early, especially the Adagia (1508) and the Copia verborum ac rerum (1512). Melanchthon’s relative and patron, Johannes Reuchlin, corresponded with Erasmus and met him at Frankfurt am Main in April of 1515. It is possible that Reuchlin boasted of his bright relative then, since Erasmus praised Melanchthon as a model of the younger generation (in a veiled criticism that Germany was not doing enough to promote Humanist studies) in the Novum Instrumentum, March 1516. For his part, Melanchthon wrote to a friend in 1514, declaring “What is Latin is Erasmian.” Over the next two years, Melanchthon composed a distichon in Greek and a eulogy in Latin, both dedicated to Erasmus.26 Yet, direct correspondence between Erasmus and Melanchthon did not begin until 1519, at Melanchthon’s instigation. The letter itself was an attempt to secure Erasmus’s support for the events surrounding the Leipzig Debate and to squelch a rumor that Melanchthon had criticized Erasmus’s works. It was a faulty start. Melanchthon, humbly referring to himself as “Chick-Pea Dennis” (i. e., a Regular Joe) in relation to Erasmus’s status as the “top dog” (i. e., summo Iovi), asserted that he made no open criticism of Erasmus (as some anonymous trouble-making “nobody” had asserted), though, on further reflection, he did find some passages of Erasmus’s paraphrasis on Romans a bit too discursive. The young man had unwittingly compounded the awkwardness of the situation. Erasmus wrote back, his bile veiled by florid prose and biting sarcasm, that the “rumor” was not reported by a “good-for-nothing” but rather a respected mutual colleague. Further, the report was that Melanchthon had criticized Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. As a result of Melanchthon’s letter, it became apparent that not only was the original report true but also extended to yet another work.27 Wengert has taken this event as an analog for Melanchthon’s entire relationship to Erasmus. Melanchthon was only a “student” of Erasmus in so far as he — like all philologists and classicists — was indebted to Erasmus’s translations and commentaries. He praised Erasmus as a philologist but, as the letter shows, his evaluation was never uncritical. If the young scholar was not hesitant 26 See Heinz Scheible, “Melancthon zwischen Luther and Erasmus,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, ed. Gerhard May and Rolf Decot (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 171 – 97, esp. 172 – 74, and Wengert, Human Freedom, 6 – 7. 27 The letter is dated January 1519 (MBW 38 [T1, 95 – 97]). This exchange is covered by Timothy J. Wengert, “’Qui vigilantissimis oculis veterum omnium commentarios excusserit’: Philip Melanchthon’s Patristic Exegesis,” Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, ed. David Steinmetz (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), 115 – 34.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

36

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

to criticize the “top dog” linguist, how much more so was Melanchthon willing to criticize Erasmus’s theology? In the subsequent debate between Erasmus and Luther over freedom of the will, Melanchthon stood squarely on Luther’s side theologically, though he criticized his older colleague’s bombastic style. Nevertheless, Scheible rightly rejects the oft repeated affirmation that Melanchthon held to Erasmus’s view.28 Further, Melanchthon’s own views concerning the freedom of the will and his attempts to mediate were seen by neither Melanchthon nor Luther as a betrayal of the latter’s view. Melanchthon stood firmly in the Evangelical thought of Wittenberg, “attempting to bring Erasmus’s theology in line with Luther, not the other way around.”29

3.2

Melanchthon and Luther

Much is made of the influence Luther had over his younger colleague. Some scholars even go so far as to state that Luther “converted” the young Humanist to the Evangelical cause. Such statements are misleading. One cannot doubt that the charming, intelligent, pious, and forceful nature of Luther had a strong influence on his younger but equally intelligent and pious colleague. Further, there is no denying the effect that Luther had on Melanchthon’s development as a theologian.30 However, it is wrong to focus on Luther’s influence on Melanchthon so as to cloud Melanchthon’s own achievements and pre-set convictions. It is also important not to overstate this influence so as to make Melanchthon either an Evangelical or a Humanist as a result of having met Luther. Manschreck asserts that Melanchthon’s introduction to a proto-Evangelical theology was not the result of having met Luther ; he had already become convinced of the necessity of ecclesiastical reform and had come to doubt the scholastic theological consensus (especially the doctrine of Transubstantiation) and classical philosophy from reading Occam, Wessel, [Reuchlin’s] conflict with the Cologne Dominicans, and his reading of the Bible, before he came to Wittenberg. Association with Luther only confirmed his convictions. Only in this way can we

28 See Scheible, Melanchthon, 149 – 53. 29 Wengert, Human Freedom, 23. 30 Melanchthon credits Luther with helping him to discover the gospel, “Ich habe von ihm das Evangelium gelernt” (MBW 2302/CR 3, 827). See Scheible, ‘Luther und Melanchthon,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 139 – 52. Scheible notes “Als Melanchthon nach Wittenberg gekommen war, entstand sofort eine enge Zusammenarbeit mit Luther. Luther verbesserte bei Melanchthon sein Griechisch, Melanchthon begann ein ordentliches Theologiestudium und wurde ein entschiedener Anhänger Luthers” (142).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon: “Between” Humanism and Reform?

37

comprehend the tremendous and vigorous theological output in [Melanchthon’s] first year.31 That is, Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg as a humanistically trained scholar who was already applying his skills to theological questions. His earliest works reveal no hesitancy to apply Humanist methods to theological questions. The Loci communes of 1521, the first Protestant systematic theology, is organized according a classical rhetorical method.32 Proponents of the idea that Melanchthon only later — and then only with great reluctance — engaged in theology cite his letters to Luther and others in which Melanchthon protests (against Luther’s insistence) that he is unfit and unable to teach theology.33 Some, such as Kurt Aland, claim this is because Melanchthon was still too committed to Humanism and could not fully embrace Evangelical theology, at least not enough to teach it “purely.” Others point to an “identity crisis as a leader of reform” after the negative encounter with the Zwickau Prophets.34 A more careful examination of both the content and context of the letters around this time, however, demonstrate that Melanchthon’s protests were rooted in a desire not to see his teaching responsibilities increased. A review of Melanchthon’s activities both before 1523 and after the successful renegotiation of his position at the university in 1525, reveals that Melanchthon was not reluctant to engage in theology. Melanchthon joined the Arts faculty in 1518. After earning his baccalaureate in Theology in 1519, Melanchthon began to lecture also in the Theology faculty. By 1521, he had completed the requirements for the degree of Sententiarius. The dual responsibility placed pressing demands on him: in addition to lectures in the Arts faculty on Virgil, Aristophanes, Lucian, Cicero, and Hesiod (and, for a while, Hebrew), he also lectured in the Theology faculty on the gospels of Matthew and John as well as the epistles of Romans and Corinthians. Further, Melanchthon was called to serve as university Rector during the winter semester of 1523/1524. By 1523, Melanchthon was arguing that there were now enough qualified theologians on the faculty to permit him to cut back on his lectures there. One must also see Melanchthon’s protests in connection to his deteriorating health, which included severe insomnia. It is also worth noting that while Melancththon’s teaching responsibilities has increased, his salary had not. Melanchthon was finally granted a sabbatical in April, 1524. After October, 1525, Melanchthon and Luther were freed from their faculty responsibilities and given permission to lecture on topics of their 31 Manschreck, Quiet Reformer, 56. 32 Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon’s 1522 Annotations on Romans and the Lutheran Origins of Rhetorical Criticism,” Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, ed. Richard Muller and John Thompson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 118 – 140. 33 See MBW 237 [T1, 491 – 92], MBW 268 [T2, 57 – 58], and MBW 342 [T2, 177 – 78]. 34 See Euan Cameron, “Philipp Melanchthon: Image and Substance,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48 (October 1997), 707.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

38

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

own choosing. In 1526, after an absence of three years from the Theology faculty, Melanchthon chose — in his new found freedom — to offer theological lectures on law and the freedom of the will.35 This pre-1526 protest reveals the pragmatic appeal of a gifted but overworked junior faculty member, not the hand-wringing of a willynilly milquetoast. Considering the entire legacy of the relationship between Luther and Melanchthon (and Melanchthon’s influence on Lutheranism), we should remember that more of the texts which constitute the Book of Concord were written by Melanchthon than Luther. We should remember also that Melanchthon was an independent thinker, able to endorse the actions of Luther which he fully approved (such as the debate at Leipzig, burning the papal bull of excommunication along with the canon law and works of Thomas Aquinas, and endorsing Luther’s early radical treatises) and openly — though discreetly — contradicting Luther when he disagreed.36 As mentioned earlier, some scholars, in their zeal to correct this misconstrual of the relationship between Luther and Melanchthon, have gone too far the other way, emphasizing the “friendship” between the two men.37 There are some historical facts to support this thesis: the two men lived and worked very close together, the reciprocal laudatory statements from the two men, Luther’s fervent prayers over Melanchthon’s grave illness in 1540, the eloquent eulogy delivered 35 See Scheible, Melanchthon, 33 – 34, 38, 40 – 42, and 74. 36 For instance, see the rider Melanchthon attached with his signature to the Smalcald Articles, 1537 (BSLK 463 – 64; BC 326). Other discrete objections, such as the way Luther carried himself in the debate with Erasmus or discussions leading up to the Wittenberg Concord, are discussed in Scheible, Melanchthon, 149 – 53 and 118 – 20, respectively. 37 The proceedings of the International Luther Congress dedicated their 1960 meeting to the relationship between Luther and Melanchthon, see Vilmos Vajta, ed., Luther and Melanchthon in the History and Theology of the Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961). Most important for our discussion is the article by Heinz Scheible, “Luther und Melanchthon,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 139 – 52. Therein, he counters the assertions of a “friendship” between the two men made by Bernhard Lohse and Wilhelm Neuser ; see Bernhard Lohse, “Philipp Melanchthon in seinen Beziehungen zu Luther,” Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 bis 1546, 2 vols., ed. Helmar Junghans (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1983), 403 – 18 and Wilhelm Neuser, Luther und Melanchthon: Einheit im Gegensatz (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1961). Supplemental are the following articles by Scheible, “Melanchthon neben Luther,” “Melanchthon zwischen Luther und Erasmus,” “Melanchthon und Luther während des Augsburger Reichtags 1530,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 153 – 70, 171 – 97, and 198 – 221, respectively. Echoing Scheible’s conclusions is Günther Wartenberg, “Philip Melanchthon: The Wittenberg Reformer Alongside Luther,” Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1998): 373 – 82. See also Timothy J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon’s ‘Annotationes in Johannem’ in Relation to its Predecessors and Contemporaries (Geneva: Droz, 1987), 145 and “Luther and Melanchthon/Melanchthon and Luther,” Lutherjahrbuch 66 (1999): 55 – 88. For a view critical of Scheible and Wengert, affirming a fervent friendship between Melanchthon and Luther, see Jonathan W. Zophy, “Philip Melanchthon as a Family Man and Friend,” Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1998): 430 – 44.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon and Patristic Authority

39

by Melanchthon at Luther’s funeral, and Melanchthon’s personal involvement in caring for Katherine Luther after her husband’s death.38 Yet, such examples can mislead us, overlooking the fact that we are dealing with men of very different temperaments, ages, and intellectual pursuits. We should not distort a professional respect and personal affection (and at times, great annoyance!) under a romanticized patina of “friendship.” If we take friendship to mean a “loyal confidant” and one with whom one shares a natural affinity, we should look to Melanchthon’s relationship with Camerarius or Caspar Cruciger, not to Luther. Three points need to be kept in mind: 1) again, Luther is not the absolute standard for what constitutes Lutheranism; 2) more importantly, we should not fail to note how Melanchthon influenced Luther’s own theological development; and 3) in order to do so, we need to see Melanchthon for the independent and resourceful thinker he was. We must abandon the long inherited (and greatly unjust) image of Melanchthon being tossed to and fro by the jostling forces of Humanism, Evangelicalism, Gnesio-Lutheranism, Calvinism, Roman Catholic prelates, and territorial princes. Such a view would have us believe that Melanchthon could only feebly make a stand and, such as it was, not for very long. In order to prove the error in this image, let us now turn to a demonstration of the consistent principles Melanchthon employed in his theological work, especially concerning the role of patristic authority.

4.

Melanchthon and Patristic Authority

Melanchthon was a highly trained and skillful Humanist who applied this learning to theological questions, as is clearly seen in his conviction that history and language arts could help reveal and promote the Gospel. By participating in these questions concerning the common cause of the age, he made contributions that were resonant with both Humanists and Protestant Reformers but were at times differently expressed or emphasized by Erasmus, Luther, and other Humanists and Reformers. His contributions warrant discussion next to — not subservient to — the other voices of the time. By speaking first of Melanchthon’s method for reading patristic sources and then identifying his motivations for doing so, I wish to counter the opinion that Melanchthon picked and chose his patristic sources based on either whim or expediency. Rather, Melanchthon read the Fathers according to established 38 “Though there was hardly a close friendship between [Melanchthon] and Katherina,” Melanchthon was appointed her guardian. He looked after her during the Smalcald War of 1546 – 47 and he supported her in a court case at Leipzig involving a property dispute. See Martin Treu, “Katherina von Bora: The Woman at Luther’s Side,” Lutheran Quarterly 13 (1999): 173 – 74.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

40

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

theological criteria, by which he was able to extol that which he judged to be laudatory and decry that which he found disagreeable in the patristic testimony. On the whole, however, Melanchthon’s method and motivations are not mutually exclusive; each reaffirms the other. Melanchthon often commended the reading of the Fathers to his students and the clergy, “Pastors should read what the ancients [i.e., patristic authors] have written. That way, they can all the better instruct themselves and others [for whom they are responsible].”39 Yet, not all the ancient authors are profitable for reading, nor is everything a great Father wrote edifying. Melanchthon, citing St. Basil, wrote that reading the Fathers is like bees collecting nectar from flowers: Some declare that just as bees collect nectar from a great many variety of flowers, so too are doctrines to be selected from the various schools of thought. These men are to be refuted by this very example, for just as bees, with nature leading them, avoid poison, so we, with God lighting the way, avoid false opinions. Just as it is proper for each person to be a citizen of a definite and ethical city, so it is fitting for him to be called a hearer of a definite and honorable school. We do not profess to be Aristoteleans, and we distinguish among the philosophical schools.40 So, although Melanchthon encouraged others to read the Fathers (and classical authors), it was not enough, in his view, merely to read them. Melanchthon has in mind some of his contemporaries, especially Georg Witzel, who had hoped to build a moral and liturgical reform of the Church based on the consensus antiquitatis quinque secularis.41 We will turn to this discussion in a moment. For now, however, it is important to understand that Melanchthon could not accept such an uncritical approach. The ancient commonplace was that bees 39 See Visitation Articles, 1527 (MSA 3, 430) This advice was repeated in the Letter to the City Council of Soest, 20 June 1540 (MBW 3262/CR 5, 133). In his preface to Geoffrey Hittorp’s edition of Ps-Hegesippus’s version of The Jewish War, Melanchthon issued another plea for patristic study and claims that antiquity and truth are inseparably connected (MBW 378/CR 1, 724), see Fraenkel, Testimonia, 22. 40 Erotemata Dialectices (CR 13, 656). The illustration is repeated in other works, namely De Ecclesia et de Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 634) and Explicatio Sententiarum Theognidis, 1551 (CR 19, 57). According to Meijering, though a commonplace theme, Melanchthon knows the quotation from Basil’s Sermo de legendis libris gentium 3 (MPG 31, 570). To my knowledge, it does not appear in the Adages (1508) collected by Erasmus. 41 In particular, Melanchthon had in mind Georg Witzel’s Typus Ecclesiae Prioris and those who attempted to reform the Church through establishing a common liturgy while setting doctrinal issues aside (or glossed over through ambiguous formulae). Such attempts were tried in Frankfurt, Leipzig, and Meissen and rejected by Melanchthon. As an aside, I use the phrase as a scholarly shorthand to describe the consensus approach. To my knowledge, Melanchthon never uses the phrase himself. For Melanchthon’s relation to Witzel and other Reform Catholics, see Scheible, “Melanchthons Auseinandersetzung mit dem Reformkatholizmus,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 222 – 244.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources

41

gathered nectar and spiders gathered venom from the same flowers; nature led them to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, according to Melanchthon, readers must discern (with “God lighting the way”) where to find the doctrinal nectar in the Fathers and avoid any poison. For Melanchthon, just because a practice or doctrine could be shown to have existed was not a sufficient reason to justify its re-establishment or continued existence. Melanchthon praised history but decried historicism. The question before us then, is by what standard did Melanchthon judge patristic testimony : his personal professional opinion? Theological or political expediency? Or a set of persistent theological principles?

5.

Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources

5.1

Melanchthon and History

Melanchthon was an avid student of history. As an editor with the publisher Thomas Anshelm in Tübingen, Melanchthon read the world history of Johannes Nauclerus (1425 – 1510).42 The work was published posthumously, with a preface by Reuchlin. According to Scheible, it was through the humanistic circle around Reuchlin that Melanchthon was instilled with an appreciation for the value of history.43 It is through history that we see demonstrated the corruption of humanity, the salvific acts of God (culminating in the Incarnation), and the exemplary humans who have been justified by their trust in God and those who have been condemned for lacking it. From their errors and victories (through divine grace), we find salutary guidance for our own struggles. In short, a study of history is a necessary component of Ethics.44 Several studies have examined Melanchthon’s use of ancient and patristic histories.45 Fraenkel, having examined both the sources and the literature that 42 Memorabilium omnis aetatis et omnium gentium chronici commentarii (1516). Nauclerus had been the first rector (and later, chancellor) of the University of Tübingen and was a judge of the Swabian League. 43 Scheible, Melanchthon, 251 – 52. 44 Scheible, Melanchthon, 254. See also Backus, “The study of church history performs two functions, 1) it provides us with a genealogy of orthodoxy and by the same token 2) show us where and when the Church went wrong” (Historical Method, 331). 45 See Heinz Scheible, ed., Die Anfänge der reformatorischen Geschichtsschreibung. Melanchthon, Sleidan, Facius und die Magdeburger Zenturien (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1966); Martin Wallraff, “Die Rezeption der spätantiken Kirchengeschichtswerke im 16. Jahrhundert,” Auctoritas Patrum II: Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), 223 – 60; and Joachim Knape, “Melanchthon und die Historien,” ARG 91 (2000): 111 – 26.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

42

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

surround his understanding of history, has identified five “laws” which Melanchthon consistently applied to interpreting history : 1) The Church exists in the Old and New Testament, with consistent themes throughout both, despite general apostasy. 2) The true Church is always in the minority. 3) Since the Church is a minority, it is always calling the larger body to reform. 4) Yet, error and corruption are never total, the true testimony of the Church is never silenced or destroyed. 5) True Christian faith can be conceived as true not only because error is absent from the period but also it is clearly separated and distinguished from the error that exists simultaneously. Thus, there is a dualist theological background since the history of the Church is not only an answer but a question: the presence of a given doctrine in the history of the Church does not in itself prove its truth.46 The five laws established by Fraenkel are gleaned from the Chronicon Carionis (1558).47 The work represents the mature thought of Melanchthon concerning history as a discipline. The Chronicon was begun by an associate of Melanchthon’s, who was also likely a former student, Johannes Carion (1499 – 1537). Like Melanchthon, Carion had studied mathematics (i. e., in the sixteenth century, astrology) with Johannes Stöffler in Heidelberg. Carion later become the court astrologer (and thus, important advisor) to the Elector Joachim I of Brandenburg. It was as part of the humanist circle around Reuchlin in Heidelberg that Carion also developed an interest in history. In 1531, Carion sent Melanchthon a draft of the newly written history, asking Melanchthon for advice. According to Scheible, the additions of Melanchthon were incorporated into the text, though without credit. Nonetheless, the stamp of Melanchthon on the work was obvious. The work was published in German in 1532, with an introduction by Melanchthon.48 Though history was not yet an independent discipline in any Eu46 Fraenkel, Testimonia, 71 – 77. These conclusions are reaffirmed in Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon on Time and History in the Reformation,” Consensus 30 (2005), 9 – 33. The laws that governed Melanchthon’s view of history can be contrasted with other histories of the time, see Heinz Scheible, Die Anfänge der reformatorischen Geschichtsschreibung, ibid., who places Melanchthon in context with Sleiden and the Magdeburg Centuries (1559 – 74). For another comparison to the Centuries, see also Backus, Historical Method, 345. 47 Chronicon Carionis latine expositum et auctum multis et veteribus et recentibus historiis, in narrationibus rerum Graecarum, Germanicarum et Ecclesiasticarum, a Philippo Melanthone, 1558 (CR 12, 711 – 1094). 48 Scheibe, Melanchthon, 253. The title of the work is Chronica durch Magistrum Johan Carion vleissig zusamen gezogen, menigklich nützlich zu lesen (March, 1532). A Latin translation of the popular text was made by Hermann Bonnus in 1537, which was published in Paris, Leiden, and Venice.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources

43

ropean university, Melanchthon continued to encourage its study in orations and recommended readings to his students. In 1558, Melanchthon decided to reprint Carion’s texts with several major revisions. Even though Melanchthon is essentially the author of this new text, he credited himself only as the editor. For Melanchthon, history is not a linear unfolding of expanding progress or regress. Instead, it is a cycle of alternating progress and regress in a linear manner. He divided history into various ages in which it can be said that the proclamation of the Gospel was either more or less clearly pronounced. He will sometimes speak of different ages.49 Melanchthon believed (with many of his colleagues) that he was living in the “last days.” Thus, Melanchthon anticipated the return of Christ in Judgment at any moment, since certainly the calamity in the ecclesiastical and political orders could indicated as much.50 Yet, unlike the Radical Reformers, he never believed that the world, and especially the Church, was ever abandoned by God. At its lowest moments, the world and the Church were always provided with divinely sent prophets who called people back to God. Conversely, even in an epoch in which the world is in greatest resonance with the Gospel, it never comes close to reaching the fullness of peace and justice to which it is called. Therefore, Melanchthon’s view of history avoids the extremes of both apocalypticism and utopianism. Finally, Melanchthon made no sharp distinction between sacred and secular history. According to Backus, Melanchthon “presupposed that a historical consensus about religious and political events is possible and indeed even necessary and that any departure from it entails heresy and political disorder.”51 All history is infused with a sense of divine providence and salvific will for all of humanity, to which humans respond in more or less worthy degrees. This unified 49 One of the primary divisions of history is between the Age of Origen and the Age of Augustine, see De Luthero et aetatibus Ecclesiae, 1548 (CR 11, 786). We find references to the errors of Origen in which the purity of the Gospel was infused with a philosophy that was flawed. The error was only corrected by the intervention of Augustine, see Quo Iudicio Legendi Autores, 1522 (CR 20, 705), De Ecclesia et Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 610), and the Preface to De Spiritu et Littera, 1545 (CR 5, 805); cited in Fraenkel, Testimonia, 86 – 87. Yet, for Melanchthon, “The true history of the Church is not at all primarily one of men but of true preaching,” Fraenkel, Testimonia, 79. See also Backus, “What is crucial for Melanchthon concerning church history is to underline the consensus of ante-Nicene Fathers on the Incarnation and Trinity and show that Arius’ heresy had been condemned before he even voiced it,” Historical Method, 331. 50 A study of the Bible (especially Daniel 2 and 7), ancient authors (especially Plato and Aristotle), and the apocalyptic works of the Franciscan friar at Eisenach Johannes Hilton (d. 1376), also led Melanchthon to assert that the world would last only 6,000 years and that — being now in the middle of the sixteenth century, besieged by the fury of Caesero-Papalism on the one hand and the Turks on the other — the world would not last much longer. See Scheible, Melanchthon, 255 – 56. 51 Backus, Historical Method, 332.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

44

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

view of history motivated Melanchthon to study the events of the past in order to help understand the current situation, though not to discover “how” we arrived in our particular situation. Rather, since Melanchthon viewed history as a cycle of progress and regress along a linear cycle, one must study history for patterns of behavior either to be emulated or avoided. Therefore, a study of the early Church — tossed about by political calamity and doctrinal confusion — helps later Christians to identify the heretical specters of the past which haunt the present, thus providing the means by which they may be exorcized again. For Melanchthon, this means finding and adhering to the specific theological grammar established by the apostolic Church, which has been handed down by the purest writers of the Church. These individuals established divine schools for this very purpose. This liberal approach to history also engenders an optimistic, universalist approach to education, vocations, and the various scholarly disciplines. In this way, Melanchthon is in harmony with the larger Renaissance humanist context. A study of classical rhetorical forms, ancient languages, and history are open to — and even required of — a theologian.52 During Melanchthon’s time, the label of “grammarian” went from being an insult to a necessary aspect of theological work (especially, of course, as it related to biblical exegesis).53 A return to classical forms meant a mastery of both rhetoric and dialectic (despite his harsh criticism of the scholastic dialectical method) as well as an appreciation for the insights of the various philosophical schools.54 They were all gifts from God 52 Three quotations from Melanchthon prove the point: “The Greek language is the teacher and, so to speak, the fountain head not only of celestial doctrine but of all learning,” Oratio de studiis linguae graecae, 1549 (MSA 3, 139 & 143); “Since theological writings are partly in Hebrew, partly in Greek — for we Latins drink from these streams — we must learn foreign languages lest we go into our encounters with the theologians blind-folded. It is language studies that bring out the meaning of idioms . . . and as we turn our mind to the sources, we begin to savor Christ,” and, in a reference to Canon 6 of Nicaea, an admonition to ‘keep to the old ways,’ Melanchthon continues “History is the key to all the sciences, not least of all theology,” both from De corrigendis adulescentiae studiis, 1518 (CR 11, 18). 53 Erasmus was the first to use the label “grammarian” against Melanchthon to disregard his participation in the theological debates of the time, see Wengert, “Qui vigilantissimis oculis veterum,” 117. This charge was repeated by Eck in Excusatio Eckii ad ea quae falso sibi Philippus Melanchthon grammaticus Wittenbergensis super Theologica Disputatioe Lipsica adscriptsit (1519). Melanchthon himself mentions the charge in the Loci, 1521 (CR 21, 89 – 90). 54 Melanchthon’s preface to Epistolae virorum clarium (1514) does not mention dialectic. Three years later, far from condemning dialectic in his oration De artibus liberalibus (1517), he praised it generously ; praise which continued throughout his life. In his dedicatory letter to Questions on Dialectics, Melanchthon wrote, “I urge and entreat them, for the sake of the glory of God and the welfare of the Church, not to neglect dialectic, nor to applaud the foolish speeches of those who disparage it and loudly claim that it is useless for the Church. . . . And let us not be deterred from the study of dialectic for the reason that some have written that with the weapons of dialectic the truth has been overthrown by the authors of warped tenets

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources

45

which, though misused in the past, could once again be united under Christ in service to the Gospel. Melanchthon’s attitude toward the ancient pagan philosophers is well summarized by John Schneider : Even in the context of his most critical assessment of philosophy, Melanchthon would maintain that pagan philosophers did not merely catch the truth in a fractured manner, but they did so with ontologically right intentions, reason, and (sometimes) results. God Himself honored the integrity of their search for universally important truths, emulated their linguistic techniques in expressing truth, and called human beings to self-knowledge and blessedness.55

5.2

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Tradition

This brief framing of Melanchthon’s understanding of history allows us to see more clearly Melanchthon’s understanding of the patristic testimony and why it was so essential for the student of theology. A review of history prompted one to see the hand of God operating in time and communicating with creation. The anxieties of our lives are comforted by the message that we possess a God already well disposed to us and who has demonstrated this eternal love through the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. This calls us to study the consistency of this message as revealed by the true teachers of God’s Word in the world. To ensure that this message remains clearly taught, we have need of the vast resources of our human intellect (which — though weakened by sin — are likewise gifts of God), namely : a knowledge of grammar and ancient languages; rhetoric and dialectic (i. e., the art of persuasion and definition); the laws of the natural sciences, including physics, mathematics, ethics, and political theory ; and the insights of various philosophical schools. Toward achieving this lofty imperative, the modern student has recourse to the example of the ancient teachers. In addition to studying history, it is also necessary for the theologian to study the history of ecclesiastical authors; that is, the ecclesiastical tradition. In a world full of discordant voices, however, how might we discern which teachers we are called to hear? Even among great teachers (e. g., Cyprian), some parts of their testimony is more trustworthy (Cyprian’s theology of the unity of the Church) — for this is not a rebuke of the art, but of evil minds and distorted instruction. As in other studies, the student’s disposition should be upright and loving of truth, and he should study the art cautiously, and employ it modestly and seriously for the examination and elucidation of the truth” (CR 6, 653 – 58; Kusukawa, Orations, 85 and 86). Thus, Melanchthon is not critical of dialectic, but rather very critical of the Scholastics, whose exclusive appeal to dialectic above other methods is detrimental to the scholarly enterprise. 55 Schneider, Oratio Sacra, 123.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

46

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

than others (such as his baptismal theology). Melanchthon established six rules for judging the patristic testimony ; again, as outlined by Fraenkel: 1) Following Tertullian, the older is better. The Fathers’ own theology was biblical theology. They are a stage on the way back to Scripture if we appeal to them as they themselves wanted to be understood . . . we should not pretend that they have an independent authority of their own, since they themselves never claimed such a thing. 2) Since only some of the Fathers or only a part of their teaching expounds the full evangelical truth, it is necessary to go behind them to their own scriptural sources. 3) The appeal to the Fathers and antiquity is through history, not above or beside it. 4) Nothing should be taught among us that does not have a precedent, that is, that never existed before. 5) The consensus of the Catholic Church is first and foremost the consensus of the Prophets and Apostles; post-apostolic consensus then is an extension of the consensus of Scripture, not something beside it. Therefore, we see that Melanchthon appeals to Scripture primum et verum but not Scripture alone in so far as that implies a rejection of extra-biblical authorities. 6) A “textual” or “propositional” approach: using the later restatements by the Church as a key to attaining the one original meaning of Scripture which is the model of all the later statements.56 Thus, we can evaluate Melanchthon’s use of tradition, which certainly included the patristic testimony, in the following manner : God has revealed His gracious nature toward creation and humanity consistently throughout time as is known especially through the canonical Scripture. Moreover, this revealed knowledge is superior to but not unaided by the knowledge of God which is attained through the natural law (through the careful analysis of natural philosophy). The heart of the divine revelation is revealed in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ: through him alone are we, through no merit of our own, justified and through divine grace are we renewed and made able to grow in greater conformity to God’s will. The divine action of salvation is summarized most succinctly in the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Whoever grasps this doctrine has comprehended the essence of God’s gracious disposition towards us and has in turn grasped the turning out toward the world in service to others it necessitates. Thus, history and tradition are essential to Melanchthon’s understanding of the theological enterprise. Yet, readers of Melanchthon are then met with an apparent paradox: one the one hand, Melanchthon affirms the authority and 56 Fraenkel, Testimonia, 193 – 99.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources

47

sufficiency of Scripture for all of theology ; on the other hand, Melanchthon affirms the necessity of tradition and the authority of the Church’s interpretation of certain biblical passages. This latter seems to violate the former principle. Likewise, Melanchthon sometimes seems to be promoting a new faith (based on the rediscovery of the Gospel)57 while also adamantly affirming that the evangelical faith is not only biblical, it is harmonious with the earliest, purest doctrine of the Church catholic. Fraenkel describes the matter in this way : Melanchthon’s renovata doctrina seems to thus express two aspects of the way in which Melanchthon understood the Reformation. On the one hand, it appears to be something new, superceded by the past history of the Church; yet on the other hand, it seems opposed to innovation, appears to claim to restore what is original, and, where suitable, turn to the past for precedent or guidance.58

It might seem that, by buttressing his justification for the renovata doctrina, Melanchthon can be charged with lacking the strength of his initial, primary conviction of sola scriptura. Also, because of his role as the formulator of many of Lutheranism’s confessional and pedagogical documents, Melanchthon has been charged with intellectualism, the father of Lutheran Scholasticism, and the originator of the process of Confessionalization.

5.3

The Necessary Distinction between the Law and the Gospel

This brings us to the most fundamental theological category in Melanchthon’s thought: the necessary distinction between the Law and the Gospel.59 This dis57 “Neque enim felicius discere queas, quam ubi te animi tui conflictatio erudierit. Sic enim docet spiritus. Nostram Theologiam videntur adiuvare nulli neque neotericorum, neque veterum scriptorum, praeter Augustinum, et pauculos Graecos,” Letter to Georg Ebner, 12 February 1521 (MBW 124 [T1, 253]. The letter is printed in the CR as a preface to Iudicium D. Martini Lutheri de Erasmo Roterodamo . . ., CR 20, 704). However, this evaluation comes before Luther has articulated the two-fold righteousness of God or the first use of the Law. 58 Frankel, Testimonia, 14 – 15. 59 In what has become a classical explanation of Lutheran theology, Eric W. Gritsch and Robert W. Jenson explain the Law-Gospel dialectic in this way : “Since ‘justification by faith’ is a stipulation about identifying language-characteristics of the gospel language-activity, the Lutheran Reformation had an alternative form of the doctrine, more directly as analysis of language. This goes: So speak of Christ that you ‘rightly divide law and gospel.’ Law and Gospel are here labels for two fundamental kinds of discourse into which, the Reformers believed, all human communication could be divided. The Law is the totality of all human communication, insofar as what we say to each other functions in our lives as demand, or, what is the same, poses the future conditionally. Literal law says ‘if you do such-and-such, such-and-such will happen.’ They open a desired or feared future and make that future depend on what the person addressed does or is in advance thereof. . . . The direct counterpole to law is promise. If law-communication imposes an ‘if . . . then . . .’ structure on life,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

48

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

tinction is the foundation for correctly perceiving the relationship between humanity and God. If one fails to recognize the function of this distinction in Melanchthon’s works, one will fall easily into the error of confusing Melanchthon’s humanistic appreciation for “philosophy” for the same exhibited by Erasmus and others of his day. It is exactly this failure that led Wilhelm Mauer and Clyde Manschreck to confuse the relationship between Erasmus and Melanchthon and led E. P. Meijering to accuse Melanchthon of being both careless and arbitrary in his evaluation of patristic sources. This dialectic does not merely equate Law with the Old Testament and the Gospel with the New Testament.60 Further, an appeal to history (i. e., tradition) is also essential, as history is the testimony of how certain Christian witnesses testified to the Gospel in the succeeding generations. The Gospel, therefore, stands among yet above both the letter of the Old and New Testament as well as history itself. This understanding avoids both biblicism as well as historicism. Simply because something can be shown to be within the Bible or the Christian tradition is not itself a sufficient standard for orthodoxy. Therefore, Melanchthon read the Bible to search for how the Prophets and Apostles testified to the distinction between the Law and the Gospel (that is, proclaimed our justification by grace through faith alone). Likewise, Melanchthon read the Fathers and urged his audience to heed their testimony not for their authority as Fathers but as (and in so far as) the Fathers correctly articulated the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. Some Fathers (such as Augustine and the Cappadocians) maintained this distinction better than others (such as Origen and Jerome). The Gospel, as a theological category, means more for Melanchthon than simply the biographical accounts of the four canonical gospels. Rather, as a theological principle, the Gospel is that which announces to us the good news of God’s redemptive action in Christ for all of humanity, a proclamation that gives

a promise grants the pattern ‘because . . . therefore . . .’ . . . The Gospel is the Reformation label for that promise which , if true at all, is unconditional: the promise made in the name of one who has already satisfied the condition of death and therefore has all the future in his gift.” See Eric W. Gritsch and Robert W. Jenson, Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 43 – 44. 60 For Melanchthon and the Lutheran tradition, the Gospel was preached from the very beginning, See Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 735; Preus, 82): The Book of Genesis is particularly important for there we learn of the origin of sin and the first promise of grace, and upon these two principles hang the entire Scripture, see Melanchthon’s Commentary on Genesis (CR 13, 761). Likewise, Moses and the prophet Joel are truly evangelists when they repeat the divine revelation that “the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love” (Ex 34:6, Joel 2:12 – 13). Finally, Christ himself increases the severity of the Law (Matt 5), uttered “hard sayings,” and spoke of damnation. Those who hear the Gospel and still perceive only what must be done — or worse, twist the Gospel into a act to be performed or satisfaction still to be made — have turned the Gospel into Law.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources

49

comfort to terrified consciences.61 Melanchthon saw the Pauline corpus, especially the Epistle to the Romans, as the touchstone for a proper understanding of Law and Gospel.62 In order to proclaim the Gospel, one must first reveal the power of sin (i. e., stand under the judgment of the Law). The foundation for this distinction is in introduction of the first Loci communes, 1521: But as for the one who is ignorant of the other fundamentals [of the Christian faith], namely, “The Power of Sin,” “The Law,” and “Grace,” I do not see how I can call him a Christian. For from these things Christ is known, since to know Christ means to know his benefits. . . . This, then, is Christian knowledge: to know what the law demands, where you may seek power for doing the law and grace to cover sin, how you may strengthen a quaking spirit against the devil, flesh, and the world, and how you may console an afflicted conscience.63

Thus, the primary task of the Church (and any true servant of Christ) is to make known the utter sinfulness of humanity as a antidote to human vanity and arrogance. Humans need to be reminded of their sinfulness because sinfulness is so insidious. Humans are easily deceived to trust in their own innate potency and will.64 Therefore, the first task of any theologian is to emphasize the all encompassing power of sin over humanity ; that is, to make the Law known.65 Therefore, any discussion of “philosophy” (whether that be law, ethics, or the natural sciences) must begin with this recognition. This is why the Loci of 1521 began with an examination of the “Powers of Humanity, especially Free Will.”66 Human potency and endeavors must first be put into perspective before they can be praised. Melanchthon criticized Erasmus for failing to make this distinction. Human sinfulness, however, is not the last word. Human potency and endeavors have value precisely because human nature has been redeemed through the merits of Christ Jesus alone; that is, the Gospel (which Melanchthon also calls “the promises”).67 Because of the Gospel, sin is not victorious. In light of the Gospel, human potency and endeavors are redeemed and renewed. Said another way, the Law is necessary so that the power of the proclamation of divine grace 61 Melanchthon’s “broad” definition of the Gospel to include repentance was a contentious matter of debate not only with John Agricola but also up until the Formula of Concord, which ultimately defended Melanchthon’s articulation, see The Solid Declaration, Article 5 (BSLK, 951 – 61; BC, 581 – 86). See also Timothy J. Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 77 – 89 and Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997). 62 CR 21, 143; Pauck, 74. 63 CR 21, 85; Pauk, 21 – 22. 64 CR 21, 102; Pauck, 35. 65 CR 21, 116; Pauck, 49. 66 CR 21, 81 – 97; Pauck, 22 – 30. 67 CR 21, 140; Pauck, 71 – 2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

50

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

can be perceived properly.68 In Article Seven (On the Gospel) from the Loci Communes of 1543, Melanchthon wrote: Christ defined the Gospel in the last chapter of Luke as clearly as an artist when He commanded us to teach ‘repentance and remission of sins in His name’ [24:47]. Therefore, the Gospel is the preaching of repentance and the promise [of salvation]. Human reason does not by nature comprehend this, but it is divinely revealed that God has promised that for the sake of Christ, His Son, He will remit sins and pronounce us righteous, that is, accepted by Him; and he gives the Holy Spirit and eternal life, if only we believe, that is, trust that these blessings come to us for the sake of Christ. These things are promised freely, that they may be sure.69

The external and unmerited aspect of the divine, salvific action in Christ is emphasized, so that we understand that salvation is neither earned nor merited. It comes purely as a gift freely given. Following St. Paul, the Law serves to reveal sin, for “by the Law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20) and “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).What is more, those to whom the Law has been given must bear the heavier burden of divine scrutiny (Romans 2). This is not to say that the Law has only a negative function since it does in fact reveal the will of God and corrects and instructs our activities.70 Yet, when speaking of salvation, Melanchthon reminded his readers that our redemption hangs only on the promise of God through the actions of Jesus Christ alone. Scripture reveals both Law and Gospel. Both reveal the will of God. Both do something to the listener : to terrify and to comfort, respectively. Only the Law drives us to the Gospel. Only the Gospel reveals our new relationship to God in and through Christ. Only the Gospel helps us to see the Law with new eyes so that our works of righteousness (i. e., our intellectual pursuits and communal activities) are turned from grudging obedience to joyful thanksgiving, from seeing in darkness to God illuminating the way. This also allows us to mention the perspicuity of Scripture, as understood by Melanchthon. Here again, the sixteenth-century understanding is different than is commonly held by some in the later Protestant tradition. For Melanchthon, the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone — not the Scripture as Scripture — serves as the standard by which all of canonical Scripture, sub-

68 CR 21, 145; Pauck, 75. 69 CR 21, 734; Preus, 82. 70 See Article Six (on the Divine Law) of the 1543 Loci communes (CR 21, 685 – 711). And later, on the Use of the Law (CR 21, 716; Preus, 72). Melanchthon then immediately follows this discussion with his definition of three uses of the Law (CR 21, 716 – 17; Preus, 73 – 74). This articulation of a third use of the law would become the source of many intra-Lutheran controversies, the seeds of which were planted in Melanchthon’s debate with John Agricola over poenitentia, see Wengert, Law and Gospel.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Method for Reading Patristic Sources

51

sequent doctrines, and the testimony of history is to be judged.71 This doctrine is the summary of and synonymous with “the Gospel.” The function of proclaiming the Gospel is the responsibility of every Christian; the specific authority to preach and teach, however, is the duty of ordained clergy.72

5.4

The Interplay between Gospel, Scripture, and Tradition

How is the Church to use the Gospel to guide its reading of both Scripture and the Tradition? The authority to judge theological matters rests primarily with pastors and bishops.73 Nonetheless, bishops, councils, (and even the pope) do not have authority over this doctrine; the doctrine governs us all; we are but stewards of the proclamation. A bishop’s authority (as well as that of any pastor or theologian) rests upon how clearly he preaches this doctrine and how closely he adheres to it in making theological judgments. 71 Within the Protestant tradition, much has been made of the perspicuity of Scripture. This, however, is not exactly the understanding of some Reformers, especially Melanchthon. Because the Gospel is not always so clearly discerned, because Law and Gospel can be confused, because a distortion of the Gospel can lead to anti-nomianism, and because an over-zealous appeal to allegorical exegesis can distort the meaning of the text, one must be well trained and discerning in the exegesis of Scripture. For Melanchthon, the key to interpreting all of Scripture lay in St. Paul’s doctrine of grace (which, for Lutherans, is summarized in the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone), particularly in how Paul made use of classical rhetoric to present and unfold his presentation of the Gospel. The study of Paul, however, is not to be undertaken lightly nor is it a task quickly accomplished. John Schneider writes, “Melanchthon’s concept of biblical perspicuity was contingent upon a series of complex commitments. The sensus of Scripture as a whole was not perspicuous to one until one had an adequate grasp of Paul’s [rhetorical] method. And Paul’s method was as daunting at first as it was complex. Moreover, one required this model of Scripture as a vast, unfolding literary tradition, in which the Pauline scopus appears clearly only when one recognizes the interplay between various texts. It seems there was no royal road that led straight to the sense of Scripture, but only this rhetorical one” (Sacra Oratio, 179 – 80). 72 See Loci, 1521 (CR 21, 85): “[After criticizing scholastic distinctions] Their stupidity could be left unnoticed if those stupid discussions had not in the meantime covered up for us the gospel and the benefits of Christ. . . . But as for one who is ignorant of the other fundamentals, namely, the Power of Sin, The Law, and Grace, I do not see how I can call him a Christian. For these things Christ is known, since to know Christ is to know his benefits. . . . For unless you know why Christ put on flesh and was nailed to the cross, what good will it do you to know merely the history about him?” (Pauck, 21 – 22). 73 Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession reads: “According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest . . . . On this account parish pastors and churches are to be obedient to the bishops according to the saying of Christ in Luke 10:16, ‘He who hears you hears me’” (BSLK, 123 – 24; BC, 94).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

52

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

The doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone has the exclusive authority to rule and govern the Church’s proclamation. This doctrine, however, is the primary but not exclusive proclamation of the Church. The Church, as a communal body and a community within a diverse society, must make decisions not always directly related to this doctrine. Decisions related to “good order” (both liturgical forms and ecclesiastical law) arise that are not directly related to this doctrine. Lutherans, in distinction from other Protestant movements, affirm that decisions affecting the good order of Church and society must not contradict the Gospel but need not necessarily be found in canonical Scripture. Therefore, Lutherans have exhibited a variety of liturgical forms, ecclesiastical structures, and opinions related to political questions. In such questions, the testimony of tradition is necessarily important. As a result, the testimony of tradition is given a greater role within Lutheranism than other Protestant communities; yet, because of the primacy of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, tradition as tradition is never an authority in and of itself. It must first be tried in the court of the Gospel. The focus of the Lutheran Confessions — especially Article Seven of the Augsburg Confession, chiefly drafted by Melanchthon — moves away from affirming any particular ecclesial communion as the true Church, even adherents to its own teachings. Instead, the Augsburg Confession affirms any ecclesial gathering in which the Gospel is preached rightly and the sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. Sixteenth-century Lutherans charged that the Roman focus on the supreme authority of the Petrine Office dangerously obscured the person and benefits of Christ. Lutherans were also dissatisfied with “idealistic” views of the Church that would deny any apostolic authority to the concrete ministerial office. As a result, the Confessions center authority in Christ, the Word of God (as preached and celebrated in the sacraments) and not in external, human institutions. The Confessions do grant the magisterium the right to make binding doctrines of the first and second order. The magisterium, however, should be obeyed in so far as it is faithful to and does not contradict the Gospel. Rejected, then, is any attempt to extend this authority to include the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome or the lone conscience of the individual believer. Against both their Roman and Protestant opponents, Lutherans refuse to equate “Catholic” with Roman papacy. This position affirms an ecclesio-focus (over against individualism) while rejecting ecclesio-centrism (over against ecclesial exclusivity).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts

6.

53

Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts

With this summary of Melanchthon’s understanding of the interplay between Scripture, the Gospel, history, and tradition, we are now prepared to examine key phrases and concepts used by Melanchthon in the course of his theological work with the Church Fathers. By examining these keys terms and how they related to the function of the patristic argument in Melanchthon, we will have set the rest of this dissertation in its appropriate context. The terms to be discussed here are: the consensus antiquitatis, scriptores puriores, the chain of teachers, the Church as a School, and the theological grammar. With the exception of the first, all of these terms were an active part of Melanchthon’s vocabulary in his evaluation of the importance of the testimony of the early Church. The first term is included here, however, because it was an appeal to the purity of the early Church that Melanchthon understood from his contemporaries but could not accept.

6.1

Consensus Antiquitatis

Among the sixteenth-century Reformers, some based their platform on the concept of the consensus antiquitatis quinque secularis, the catholic consensus of the first five centuries concerning Christian dogma and practice. Close to this ideal was the maxim of St. Vincent of Lerins, to accept only that which quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (“what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”). This kind of consensus approach was encouraged most by the “Reform Catholic” movement, especially George Witzel (1501 – 1573). His Methodus concordiae (1537) and Typus ecclesiae prioris (1540) as well as his translation of the divine liturgies of St. Chrysostom (1540) and St. Basil (1546) emphasized finding common ground and comfort amidst the contemporary strife within the common practice of the early Church.74 74 For a discussion of Witzel’s understanding of patristic authority, see Barbara Henze, Aus Liebe zur Kirchenreform: Die Bemühungen Georg Witzels (1501 – 1573) um die Kircheneinheit (Münster : Aschendorff, 1995), see especially 198 – 208 for a comparison with Melanchthon; and Winfried Trusen, Um die Reform und Einheit der Kirche: Zum Leben und Werk Georg Witzels (Münster : Aschendorff, 1957), especially 40 – 48 for a discussion of the importance of antiquity and the Vincentian Canon; and Werner Kathrein, Karlheinz Diez, Barbara Henze, and Cornelius Roth, eds., Im Dienst um die Einheit und die Reform der Kirche: Zum Leben und Werk Georg Witzels (Frankfurt a.M.: Josef Knecht, 2003). For a general overview of the influence of Reform Catholicism, see John Patrick Dolan, The Influence of Erasmus, Witzel and Cassander in the Church Ordinances and Reform Proposals of the United Duchees of Cleve during the Middle Decades of the Sixteenth Century (Münster : Aschendorff, 1957). Erasmus was an important precursor to this approach. Again, see Scheible, “Melanchthons Auseinandersetzung mit dem Reformkatholizismus,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 222 – 244.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

54

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

For all parties of the sixteenth century, the early Church was, to varying degrees, a golden age in which the Church lived, believed, and worshiped as Christ wished and the Apostles had taught. For all reformers (whether Protestant or Roman), theology and praxis began to fall into corruption around the sixth century (and most dated this shift with the reforms associated with the reign of Pope Gregory the Great, r. 590 – 604). A common trope was the return to the pure teachings of the earliest Church, before it had become corrupted by philosophy and political power. Several histories written at this time describes a golden patristic age, a sharp and steady decline afterwards, and the attempt to return again to the simplicity and holiness of that earlier time. The theological principles and historical method of the Reform Catholic movement — which in addition to Witzel also included Johannes Gropper (1503 – 1559), Julius von Pflug (1499 – 1564), and George Cassander (1513 – 66) — were straightforward and concise. Practices and doctrines accepted (or at least tolerated) by the early Church should be reinstated. Therefore, the medieval reforms which did away with married priests and removed the cup from the laity should be abolished. Further, the Mass and Scripture should be restored to the people in the vernacular. On the other hand, since fasting, prayer to saints, and some form of papal primacy can be found in the first five centuries, these practices should likewise be tolerated. The Reform Catholic leaders were both articulate and influential. They included Elector-Archibishop Hermann von Wied of Cologne, Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, and Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto. While everyone claimed the Fathers, not everyone agreed on what was golden about this “golden age.” Melanchthon accepted the humanistic historical understanding of the Church and certainly looked to the early Church for theological guidance, but he could not accept such a generalist approach to the early Church.75 Melanchthon argued for a critical theological engagement with the

75 See Disputation on Ephesians, Chapter 6, 1559 (CR 12, 345); Disputation on the Apostles Creed, 1559 (CR 12, 645); and Chronicon Carionis, 1560 (CR 12, 924). Melanchthon also rejected an idealized image of the early Church. Simply because the Gospel was more purely taught in the Apostolic Age does not mean that it was a peaceful and harmonious time among Christians (as anyone who has read St. Paul should know!). Melanchthon argued that rather than being discouraged by the strife that gripped the early Church, the student of history should take comfort in this fact. If the pure teaching of the Church could endure those travails, then surely the strife of our own time should not lead us to despair, but rather make us hopeful (see especially CR 12, 924). Meijering notes that Klaus Haendler exaggerated the situation when he says that Melanchthon always objected to the consensus quinque secularis, Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic Thought, 10 n. 37, reference to Haendler, Wort und Glaube bei Melanchthon. Ein Untersuchung über die Voraussetzungen und Grundlagen des melanchthonischen Kirchenbegriffs (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968), 73, 199, and 218. Yet, both are essentially correct. Melanchthon does highly praise the Fathers and used the patristic testimony as the primary

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts

55

Fathers. The older is generally better, but it is in itself no guarantee. Simply because Servetus could cite Tertullian against St. Augustine was of no consequence. Thus, against the anti-Trinitarians, the doctrines of the ecumenical creeds are unquestioned by Melanchthon. Further, against mainly Reform Catholic theologians, Melanchthon found their work too naive historically and lacking in theological depth and criticism. The Reform Catholic method tempted the Church into one of two errors. The first is a mere historicism. Theologians and bishops need to be free to engage the past respectfully but without absolute servitude. For instance, Melanchthon refers to Paul’s exhortation for a woman to cover her head in church (1 Cor 11:10). This was once instituted for good order, Melanchthon argued, but is now obsolete, as no woman today would cause a scandal by leaving the house with her head uncovered.76 The second danger is theological. Certain practices are instituted for good order, but they can become dangerous if we begin to think that we earn merit unto salvation by observing them. A healthy respect for tradition should not give way to traditionalism or works righteousness. Examples of such practices are monasticism, fasting, and canonical satisfaction. In their times and proper context, they can help some people toward leading a holier life. Yet, if we focus on performance of these things as the means to our salvation, then the free and unmerited freedom of the Gospel has been distorted. Bishops are called upon to correct these abuses, if possible, and root them out entirely, if necessary.77 For Melanchthon, the record of history, though earnestly studied, is not historical material; yet, this praise of the Fathers never translated into the golden age as being absolutely pure and free of error. It seems that Melanchthon’s approach to the authority of the Fathers had more in common with early scholasticism than it did with some of his sixteenth century Humanist colleagues. According to Marcia Colish, “It should be appreciated here that the tweltfth-century scholastics are not interested in discussing the relationship between scriptural and patristic authority, or in placing them in a clear hierarchy vis-‚-vis each other. . . . For the scholastic of this period, antiquity is not, of itself, a test of authority. Antiquity is no guarantee that an authority was correct, in his own day, or plausible, nowadays. Thus the church fathers, and the early popes, like everyone else, have to stand up to scrutiny on the grounds of their content and of their cogency” (cited in Burcht Pranger, “Sic et Non: Patristic Authority,” Reception of the Church Fathers, 167). 76 Augsburg Confession, Article 28 (BSLK, 129; BC, 98). 77 Again, Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession reads “Our churches do not ask that the bishops restore concord at the expense of their honor — which, nevertheless, good pastors ought to do. They only ask that the bishops relax unjust burdens that are new and were accepted contrary to the custom of the catholic church. Perhaps in the beginning there were acceptable reasons for these ordinances, but they are not suited for later times It also seems that some were adopted by mistake. Bishops, therefore, could show their clemency by mitigating them, because such change would not threaten the unity of the church. For many human traditions have been changed with the passing of time, as the canons themselves show. But if it is impossible to obtain a relaxation of observances that cannot be kept without sin, we must

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

56

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

the final arbiter for establishing a proper reform of the Church, which necessitates distinguishing between human and divine traditions. The Gospel alone holds that authority. If a doctrine is not contrary to Scripture and can be kept without burdening the conscience, let it remain. Otherwise, it must be removed from the Church for the benefit of the proclamation of the Church. Therefore, while Melanchthon affirms the early Church as a golden age, he is also not uncritical of the patristic tradition. Finally, we must keep in mind the historical context in which such criticisms arose. Melanchthon’s love and study of the early Church are known to many scholars; thus, they are also often surprised by the harsh criticism of the patristic testimony they encounter in some of his works, especially his De ecclesia et de autoritate verbi Dei (1539). While this criticism reveals Melanchthon’s own theological method for reading the Fathers, it also reveals his complaint against those who overestimate the testimony of the Fathers. As Fraenkel correctly asserts, I think the De ecclesia et autoritate . . . is written against the whole school of those who, like Witzel [esp. in his] wanted a reform that was neither Evangelical or Catholic, but merely practical, ecclesiastical, liturgical, and moral.78

For Melanchthon, consulting the patristic testimony is an integral part of theological reflection. As a rule, their testimony is more trustworthy as it is closer to the apostolic age. Nonetheless, this authority is not absolute. Further, the patristic testimony is integrated into the larger catholic tradition. It is not something external, imported and imposed upon the raw material of history and dogmatic formulations of the Church. Because Melanchthon’s standard is the Gospel and the solus Christus, the patristic witness as a canon of orthodox testimony is something that arises from the very core of history and doctrine; it is a distinct but not a different or separable standard from the Church, as it is the essence of both the Church and its proclamation. A return to Scriptures necessitates a return to the Fathers, who in turn, point us back to the scriptural testimony of Christ and His Gospel.79 obey the apostolic injunction [Acts 5:29] which commands us to obey God rather than human being” (BSLK, 132; BC, 103). 78 Fraenkel, Testimonia, 28 – 29. 79 See Fraenkel, “Once more we see that Melanchthon did not think of the integral faith as a yardstick brought in from the outside, in order to measure the Fathers, but rather as something which is present in the history of the Church and can be therefore found there by the critique that he advocated and practiced” (Testimonia, 288 – 89) and again, “The patristic argument is integrated with the scriptural argument, because a return to Scripture is identical with the return of the best teaching of the Fathers, and because ‘hearing the Church’ . . . is not equivalent to hearing anyone who arbitrarily pretends to be the Church . . . but to hear the true Church means teaching the true Word of God – otherwise the idea of Catholicity is

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts

6.2

57

Scriptores puriores

From the same flowers, so the saying goes, bees collect nectar and spiders collect venom. Given the vast patristic corpus, how are we — as those looking only for nectar — to know what is true and edifying in the Fathers? Melanchthon encouraged his readers to search the patristic corpus for scriptores puriores, the purer writers. Therefore, the Fathers are placed in rank, since some are not as worthy as others. Meijering sees an inconsistency here in Melancthon’s approach. On the one hand, Melanchthon is skeptical about our ability to summarize the “theology of the Fathers,” and yet, on the other, he claims to be in line with the consensus of the catholic Church articulated by the Fathers.80 What Meijering sees as a contradiction, however, is in fact his own failure to grasp the fundamental distinction and theological judgment Melanchthon made in reading the patristic tradition. When Melanchthon claimed to adhere to the “theology of the Fathers” and the “patristic consensus,” he meant the theology and consensus of the best Fathers, the scriptores puriores. Whether Melanchthon’s own selection of the best Fathers was the correct one is a matter of debate. He is, however, anything but inconsistent in his application of this rule. As one might expect in such a ranking, Augustine stands as the most consistently valuable Father. Alongside of him, stand the Cappadocian Fathers. Augustine, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory Thaumaturgus are the Fathers who most consistently preach the pure Gospel, who do not confuse theology with philosophy, and who do not add superfluous opinions to the tradition. The claim by Melanchthon is that these scriptores puriores most consistently (though not always perfectly) taught biblical doctrine and added nothing new. For Melanchthon, its was in fact Basil who established the clear principle that the teachings put forth in the Church must be based on their clear word of Scripture and which do not contradict the Fathers. Also noteworthy is that Basil (along with Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory Nazianzen) is often paired with Augustine in Melanchthon’s lists of more pure writers.81 More than exhibiting a meaningless” (ibid., 34). This understanding is evident by 1521, as we see in Melanchthon’s response to the faculty of the Sorbonne, (CR 1, 410 – 11). 80 Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic Thought, 10. 81 “Et inquit (sc. Basilius) in Ecclesia dogmata esse proponenda, quae scripturae Apostolicae certo tradunt, et quae non pugnant cum patribus,”Questiones Academicae, (CR 10, 726). Melanchthon went on to clarify, however, that authority rested with the Church and the Fathers in so far as they did not contradict the “word of God”; i. e., the Gospel (ibid., 727). Reference to one or more of the Cappadocians as scriptores puriores by Melanchthon can be found in the following works: “a vetustis et probatis scriptoribus,” Unvollendeter Entwurf einer Antwort der Protestanten an Nikolaus Granvella in Worms 25 November 1540 (MBW 2562/CR 3, 1171); “et praecipuis Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus,” Colloquium Wormatiae, 14 – 18 January 1541 (MBW 2610.2/CR 4, 38); “der ersten und reinesten Lehrer, so bald nach der Aposteln von christlicher Lehre geschrieben haben,” Preface to German edition of Loci, 1542

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

58

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

passive habit, they also actively refuted the ravings of heretics by defending and articulating orthodox doctrine.

6.3

Chain of Teachers

For Melanchthon, our theological affirmations must be rooted in Scripture and the best tradition of interpreting Scripture. Therefore, for Melanchthon, it is imperative that we identify whom we have followed.82 The validity of the Church’s teaching is confirmed by the veracity of its purest teachers. In a very concrete sense, Melanchthon envisions a personal connection between teacher and pupil. It was this personal connection that ensured the proper teaching of the Gospel by the Apostles to later generations and from great teachers to their students. For Melanchthon, then, apostolic succession has more to do with the transmission of a body of pure, apostolic doctrine than it does with a succession in the episcopal office: Accordingly it is of greatest importance in turn whom we have as teachers, and to whose judgments on the greatest things and dogmas we listen. Thus the holy fathers often adduce partly the Apostles and partly those of the generation following the Apostles. . . . Basil studied with Gregory Thaumaturgus whose authority was distinguished when the impiety of Paul of Samosata was condemned. There is no testimony about the Trinity after the writings of the Apostles, which is older than Gregory. Basil had such high opinion of him that he

(MBW 2921/CR 4, 836); Basil mentioned with Augustine as a model theologian, Preface to De spiritu et littera, 1545 (MBW 3973/CR 5, 806);Lutherans adhere to the “patrum doctrinam,” Letter to Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, 1559 (MBW 9073/CR 9, 922 – 3); De dignitate studii theologici, 1537 (CR 11, 326); Declamatio de Basilio, 1545 (CR 11, 675); Postilla Melanchthonis, date unknown (CR 24, 351); Epistola de lipsica disputationes, 1519 (MSA 1, 6); De Ecclesia et De Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (MSA 1, 353); De restituendo scholis, 1540 (MSA 3, 113). Thaumaturgus was added to the list of more pure writers during the Christological and Trinitarian debates of the 1530s and 40s. In addition to these Cappadocians and Augustine, the following Fathers are also often listed: Athanasius, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Irenaeus. 82 The idea of a chain of pure teachers who harken back to the piety and doctrine of the Apostles — and who may not be ordained clergy and who may even be at odds with ordained clergy — is not unique to Melanchthon. This concept of a succession of apostolic teaching by those not necessarily ordained is also articulated with vigor by St. Symeon, so called The New Theologian (949 – 1022). While one finds some resonance between Symeon and Melanchthon, no direct influence can be established. For Symeon’s criticism of the clergy and his exhortation to follow “true teachers,” see Symeon, The New Theologian: The Discourses, trans. C. J. de Catanzaro (New York: Paulist Press, 1980).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts

59

said that his ears resounded with Gregory’s voice . . . Jerome heard Epiphanius and Gregory Nazianzen, and I leave out many others.83 The analogy is strained a bit here, as Basil did not study directly from Gregory Thaumaturgus. Melanchthon is not unaware of this and is using “learned from” in a figurative — though very real — sense. Though Basil did not literally sit at the feet of Gregory Thaumaturgus, he did so figuratively by reading his works and maintaining his theological insights against those who would deny the consubstantiality of the Son (the Logos) to God the Father. Just as important, as Melanchthon indicated elsewhere, is that Basil learned this instinct from his own teachers: his nurses and mother, who in turn learned from Basil’s maternal grandmother, Macrina the Elder, who was in fact a personal convert of Gregory Thaumaturgus.84 Therefore, Basil secured his appeal to Gregory’s theological legacy as a theologian (who maintained his insights into the Trinity), as a bishop (who was loyal to the authority of his orthodox predecessor), and finally, by emphasizing the personal bond between the Apostle to Cappadocia and his own family. Likewise, Melanchthon highlights Basil’s self-acknowledged indebtedness to Gregory Thaumaturgus.85 In this way, Melanchthon wished to highlight Basil’s own argument and emphasize it as the model for the study of theology : we too — though we lack the benefit of a personal encounter — may yet converse with the writings of Gregory and those of his students and theological heirs, Basil

83 CR 11, 326 – 27; Kusukawa, Orations, 184 – 85. The point is also clearly made in De Ecclesia et de Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 598 – 99). 84 De Ecclesia et Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 596/ MSA 1, 327): “Basilius allegat nutricem suam, cuius pietatem ait tunc in primis fuisse laudatam, et addit eam accepisse doctrinam a Gregorio Neocaesariensi, qui illo tempore eruditione et miraculis claruit, et refutatvit Samosatenum.” According to Meijering, Melanchthon is citing Basil from either Epistle 204,6 (MPG 32, 752) and/or Epistle 210,3 (MPG 32,771). Another interesting reference to the role that women have in the proper instruction of the faith is given when Melanchthon refers to the teaching of Mary by Anna, who was in turn taught by Elizabeth; “Evant et mulierum ac Puellarum scholae, ibi Elizabeth, Anne, Maria, una philosophatae sunt,” Quaestiones Academicae, 6 Febraury 1542 (CR 10, 737). One also finds an exact repetition of the phrase in the Enarratio in Evangelium Ioannis, 1546 (CR 15, 56 – 7). While the editors of the CR attributed this work to Melanchthon, subsequent scholarship has shown that it was written by Caspar Cruciger, Sr. See Timothy J. Wengert, “Caspar Cruciger Sr.’s 1546 ‘Enarratio’ on John’s Gospel: An Experiment in Ecclesiological Exegesis,” Church History 61 (March 1992): 60 – 74, esp. 64. 85 De iure reformandi, 1537 (CR 3, 257); Letter to Georg Volger, 1546 (CR 6, 89/MBW 4205); Academiae Wittenbergensis Leges, 1546 (CR 10, 1005), De dignitate studii theologici, 1537 (CR 11, 326 – 7); Quaestiones Academicae (CR 12, 726); De ecclesia et de autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 596/MSA 1, 327); Postilla, no date (CR 24, 357); Phil. Moral. Epitomes II (MSA 3, 241). Basil’s own claims to the theological tradition of Gregory Thaumaturgus against the Sabellianism of Atarbius of Neoceasarea is found in his Letters 206, 6 and 223, 3 (CPG §2900) and discussed by Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley : University of California, 1994), 275 – 77.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

60

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

and Gregory Nazianzen. If the early Church so benefitted by listening to these teachers, how much more so should we?

6.4

The Church as a School

It is within this context that we should briefly mention that Melanchthon emphasized the profound unity between the Church and the Academy. At one point, he even described the Church as a school, in which pure doctrine and pious praxis are taught by the “teaching Church.”86 The very first such schools were monasteries. In fact, when Melanchthon criticized sixteenth-monastic life, it is often by contrasting it with what he argued (with Luther) was the original intent of such monasteries: schools of biblical studies and Christian learning, not means by which one “earned” salvation through asceticism. To prove his point, Melanchthon often cited Basil’s own monastic retreat in Pontus and his Rule as examples. Elsewhere, he drew out the parallels between the Church and the Academy. He explained how the Academy needed the Church to prevent intellectual vanity and to harness learning to its proper end: the contemplation of God. Likewise, the Academy provided the ministers of the Church (both clergy and teachers) with the means for probing the mysteries of Scripture and creation further, so that the glory of God may be made manifest.87

86 The clearest articulation of the church as a school is found in the Loci, 1543 “Concedendum est, Ecclesia esse coetum visibilem; Neque tamen esse regnum Pontificum, sed coetum similem Scholastico coetui” (CR 21, 835; Preus, 133). In order to preserve and maintain “prime and pure doctrine,” schools were established in the Church, which established certain “tests” to judge doctrine, “Idea enim et initio coetus Scholastici in Ecclesia fuerunt, ut et custodes essent primae et purae doctrinae, et essent testes, a quibus propagata esset doctrina,” Academiae Wittenbergensis Leges, 1546 (CR 10, 1005). See also Philosophiae Moralis Epitome, 1529, “Videmus enim etiam Apostolorum tempore scholasticos coetus apud Ecclesias fuisse, ut Ionnes, et diende Polycarpus habuerunt scholas” (CR 16, 95). Melanchthon spoke of the teaching Church, the “ecclesia doctrix” and “lehrende Kirche,” see De necessaria coniunctione scholarum cum ministerio evangelii, 1543 (CR 11, 606 – 18); German translation in Melanchthon deutsch: Theologie und Kirchenpolitik, vol. 2, ed. Michael Beyer, Stefan Rhein, and Günther Wartenberg (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1997), 17 – 34; as with Kusukawa’s translation, “Gregorius Neocaesarea” is mis-identified as Gregory Nazianzen, instead of Thaumaturgus. According to Markus Wriedt, the phrase “coetus scholasticus” first appeared in the Loci, 1543, see “‘Pietas et Eruditio’: zur theologischen Begründung der bildungsreformerischen Ansätze bei Philipp Melanchthon unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Ekklesiologie,” Dona Melanchthoniana, ed. Johanna Loehr (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 2005), 501 – 20, esp. 511. 87 For but two examples, see De dignitate studii theologici, 1537 (CR 11, 326) and De cura recte loquendi, 1557 (CR 12, 213 – 15). Note Basil Studer, “Die Kirche als Schule des Herrn bei Augustinus von Hippo,” Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum: Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann, ed. Georg Schöllgen and Clemens Scholten (Münster :

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts

6.5

61

A Theological Grammar

More than just an ideal, this chain of pure teachers who “think with” the Church points to a specific content: a theological grammar. As has been mentioned earlier, Melanchthon and his fellow humanists emphasized the importance of a firm grounding in linguistic studies and grammar. Only in this way can one avoid the common errors that can plague biblical exegesis and distort the understanding of classical texts. Luther himself extolled the importance of grammar for theologians (i. e., biblical exegetes) in his Operationes in Psalmos (1519). In several orations, Melanchthon prevailed upon his students to study grammar and, as a result, to improve not only their mastery over the text but also their own eloquence.88 The link between the study of languages and proper thinking is emphasized in another oration, this time commending the study of languages: I have determined here to speak about the study of languages, as they call them. Although for the most part it is usually philosophy that is spoken about here [i.e., in these academic orations], nevertheless the topic of languages is not so far removed from philosophy, if one considers it properly. Indeed, that part of philosophy that is most agreeable appears to me to depend chiefly on the knowledge of languages. . . . I am talking about Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. . . . First, I do not think there is a need for a long debate about [the necessity of languages for] theology, for it is clear that the sources of theology are contained in Hebrew and Greek writings. The languages cannot be translated in such a way that there is no need for the sources if we want to judge obscure passages, as one has to do in many very serious controversies. . . . Furthermore, teachers are hardly capable of proclaiming with a clear conscience in public regarding great and difficult controversies, if they do not understand the form of speech in the evidence from which the whole matter needs to be judged. Many heresies are the result of ignorance of languages and of forms of speech; this can be demonstrated easily in the history of ecclesiastical strife.89 One sees in these two quotations an emphasis on mastering a fixed form of speech (an emphasis repeated throughout the oration).90 Aschendorff, 1996), 485 – 98. Studer traces this idea to Augustine, though Melanchthon does not. 88 See In Praise of Eloquence, 1523 (CR 11, 64/ MSA 3, 44 – 62; Kusukawa, Orations, 76). The student in question confused the city of Salem for the Latin accusative of salt (salem, from the nominative sal). Therefore, instead of reading “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine” the student translated the sentence as “Melchizedek the king brought forth salt, bread, and wine.” Even great theologians can be confounded, as Melanchthon goes on to criticize Chrysostom’s reading of St. Paul (1 Timothy 2:15). 89 See On the Study of Languages, 1533 (CR 11, 231 – 39; Kusukawa, Orations, 29 – 30). 90 See In Praise of Eloquence, 1523 (CR 11, 50 – 66 and MSA 3, 44 – 62; Kusukawa, Orations, 76 – 7): “First, no one is so foolish as not to see that we need a fixed method of speaking (nobis certe quadam loquendi ratione opus est), by which we can clearly explain the thoughts of our

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

62

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

Just as knowledge of grammar — a mastery of the forms of speaking — is necessary for reading and discussing classical literature and biblical texts, the theologian must likewise master the grammar of the Church. As Peter Fraenkel summarized Melanchthon understanding: “Since God’s revelation is given in a definite wording, Church teaching, too, is to have it. . . . Melanchthon and his fellow theologians sought unity of doctrine in the uniformity of the forma loquendi.”91 Only by knowing and adhering to the particular manner in which the Church presents its doctrines can one avoid error.92 Said another way, humanity has received the clear testimony of the free and gratuitous redemption by God through Jesus Christ alone. This testimony had guided the purer writers of the Church. Those who wish to uphold the Gospel must likewise adhere to this testimony. This position is laid out most clearly in Melanchthon’s preface to Augustine’s De Spiritu et Littera (1545). He claims that Augustine and Basil reestablished the apostolic faith by adhering to and making clear the proper grammar of theology. Yet, despite their efforts, problems soon arose when people ignored or distorted their guidance.93 This “theological grammar” is retained not only by following patristic exegesis, but is most fundamentally established in the three chief Creeds. Peter Fraenkel noted that the Creeds served as standard, brief formulae to be repeated for the sake of maintaining the unity and continuity of the divine testimony.94 The Creeds are products of the Church and, therefore, subject to the authority of the Gospel. Nonetheless, the Creeds are essential to demonstrating the link between the Church’s historical testimony to the proclamations found in and

91 92

93 94

minds, whatever matter we need to discuss, in public or private” (CR 11, 51; Kusukawa, 61); note also the criticism against the Scholastics, who departed from the established biblical form of speaking and created their own (CR 11, 65; Kusukawa, 76 – 77). Fraenkel, Testimonia, 146 – 47. God, through proclamation in the Church, has established a forma loquendi as well as “clear and immutable sentences of heavenly doctrine [certas immutabilesque sententias de doctrina coelesti],” Testamentum Ph. Melanchthonis, 1540 (CR 3, 825); see also: Preface to the third volume of Luther’s Works, 1549 (MBW 5515/CR 7, 395); Letter to Thomas Cranmer, 1549 (MBW 5466/CR 7, 347) and Preface to Enarratio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 7, 576). In affirming the phrase sola fide iustificamur (over agaist fides cum operibus iustificat), Melanchthon argued that his defense conformed to the forma loquendi of the Prophets and Apostles, “hanc doctrinam, quam adprobant hac Sententiae hic scriptae et formam loquendi his probatam adprobo, et iudico hanc doctrinam vere esse consensum prophetarum et apostolorum perspicuum et firmum,” Acta cum Valentino Pacaeo, 3 June 1556 (MBW 7853/ CR 8, 777); in the second edition of the Loci, 1535, Melanchthon spoke of the necessity of proprietas sermonis, correct use of terms, such that the traditional language is the most acceptable (CR 21, 337); Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 605); concerning definition of “person,” Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 614); repeated in Refutatio Erroris Serveti, late 1550s (MSA 6, 372). We are to search for and adhere to the “divine meaning/sense” (dei sententia) God has established in the Church, letting the “ancient light” shine in our proclamations, Preface to De Spiritu et Littera, 1545 (MBW 3973/CR 5, 804). Fraenkel, Testimonia, 147 – 48.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Toward Greater Clarity Concerning Key Phrases and Concepts

63

through Scripture.95 As such, they are brief summaries of the testimony of God in the Scripture.96 The theology of the Creeds, especially the Nicene Creed, demands the adherence of all. The charge often made against the anti-Trinitarians was that they ignored the Church’s way of defining the Logos in John’s Prologue. This theological grammar and way of speaking were formed in the early Church and enshrined in the Nicene Creed. For instance, divine revelation in Scripture proclaims that Jesus is second person of the Trinity, are of the same being to God the Father. The ancient creed of Nicaea makes this teaching clear by forming the definition of homooousios, “the same in being” or “of the same substance.” Though not found in Scripture, Melanchthon affirmed that the Creed of Nicaea correctly interpreted the Scripture. The specific forma loquendi of the ecumenical creeds has entered the vocabulary of the Church. Any theologian who wishes to remain in the good standing of the Church must adapt to the Church’s specific way of speaking about the divinity.97 Moreover, the doctrinal summaries of the Evangelical church (such as the Augsburg Confession) were tied to the Creeds as co-witnesses to the testimony of Scripture.98 Thus, Melanchthon is not bothered that creedal language is often not specifically found in Scripture. He argued that the early Church did not institute any new dogmas, just new 95 “Unam illam perpetuam catholicae Ecclesiae Dei vocem, quam sonabant primi Patres, Prophetae et Apostoli, et quae in Symbolis expressa est,” Preface to the Enarratio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 7, 576). However, even when creeds to do not follow the exact wording amongst themselves, we can be sure they are saying the same thing, Declamatio de Coniunctione Scholarum cum Ecclesiis, 1543 (CR 11, 613). Therefore, the Creeds are a most important authority and must be taught (“gravissima auctoritate tradita”) by the pastors to the laity, for the Church’s mandate is not to invent new ways of talking about God but adhering to the simple meaning of the words of the Creed, “Nec gignet Ecclesia novam doctrinam, sed velut grammatica est sermonis divini, docet teneram aetatem, quid vocabula significent, et distribut et numerat utcunque membra doctrinae” . . . “qua in re necesse est moneri iunores de sermone Ecclesiastico, et retineri veras significationes vocum, et taxari corruptelas,” Preface to the Enarratio Symboli Niceni, 25 April 1550 (CR 7, 576). 96 See Fraenkel, 147 – 49; as well as Enarratio Symboli Niceni (CR 23, 197) and Propositiones de Consensu Veterum, 1559 (CR 12, 646). 97 According to Melanchthon, Basil himself adhered to the ancient testimony of faith concerning the doctrine of the Son of God and Holy Spirit and all the articles of the Nicene Creed adhere to the same ancient testimony, preserving and not corrupting the apostolic doctrine, Certificate for Maternus Evilius, 29 May 1559 (MBW 8970/CR 9, 827); the same idea is found in Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 633 – 34); the role that Basil and Nazianzen played in upholding the apostolic doctrine is mentioned in the two orations Melanchthon wrote on them, Oratio de Basilio, 1545 (CR 11, 676) and Oratio de Nazianzeni, 1558 (CR 12, 284). 98 “Nihil enim dubium est, hoc doctrinae genus, quod profitemur, vere esse ipsum consensum Catholicae Ecclesiae Christi, ut ostendunt Symbola, saniores Synodi et eruditiores Patres,” De Ecclesia et Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 606) and “Ut autem antea diximus, nos amplecti Symbola Apostolicum, Nicenum et Athanasianum, ita expresse adfirmamus, nos amplecti omnium Synodorum decreta, cum his Symbolis congruentia,” Responsiones ad Articulos Bavaricae Inquisitionis, 1558 (MSA 6, 295). See also Reinhard Staats, “Das Nizänum in der lutherischen Reformation,” Auctoritas Patrum, vol. 1, 213 – 26.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

64

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

grammar to elucidate received teachings. The formation of such specific language was not the product of patristic idle curiosity, but rather a response to the failure of heretics to adhere to the received understanding of the Church. Again, it is only in this context that we can understand why Melanchthon could be so harsh on certain patristic authors for not speaking clearly. Of course, one may charge that Melanchthon — in criticizing the lack of clarity of some patristic authors — is doing the very same thing he is so adamantly opposed to in the antiTrinitarians when they argued for a theological grammar that differed from the received tradition of interpretation. However, Melanchthon’s method of reading the Fathers is focused not only on the content but also the context of the received vocabulary of faith.99 This may seem contradictory, since Melanchthon harshly condemned those who sought to invent new language for the faith. His point, however, is two-fold: the Fathers, who were so close to the Apostolic teaching, created the proper grammar of faith to express the faith already handed down; only they had the authority to do so given their proximity to the Apostles and, ultimately, because their grammar conformed to and elucidated the testimony of Scripture. Second, because the Fathers were the only ones to have such authority and because they exercised their authority with clarity and simplicity, we ourselves have neither the right nor the need to invent new ways of discussing the Trinity or Christology. Instead, we must educate ourselves and the laity concerning this “particular way of speaking” and adhere to it in the strongest manner. Melanchthon repeated these formulae often and refused to part from them, despite much criticism as a result.100 Therefore, to unlock the meaning of Scripture, a study of

99 See Fraenkel, Testimonia, 324 – 37, esp. “But perhaps Melanchthon’s idea of a succession of unvarying statements and his knowledge of the fact that theological language varies in time and place, are not as far apart as it might appear at first glance. His very attempts always to say the same thing in the same traditional way appear to have shown him that this was not easy. Himself a master of the art of formulation, he had the difficulty brought home to him the more he tried to overcome it” (ibid., 326). 100 Melanchthon’s repetitive use of certain theological formulas led his critics to complain “Philip sings the same old song/ Philippus canit eandem cantilenam” (Fraenkel, Testimonia, 145). Later, concerning the definition of the mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, Melanchthon refused to go beyond the formula established by the ancient Church, “I do not speak of such controversial matters openly before the young and unlearned . . . But how the ancients have spoken, namely Dionysius, the Greek canons, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Augustine, and Prosper is entirely apparent in their writings. I keep to these forms, which were established in the Church” Memorandum concerning the Weimar Confutation (CR 9, 766), see Fraenkel, “10 Questions Concerning Melanchthon, the Fathers, and the Eucharist,” Luther und Melanchthon. Referate und Berichte des zweiten internationalen Kongresses für Lutherforschung, ed. Vilmos Vatja (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1961), 151.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Why the Cappadocians?

65

the Creeds and the theology of the ancient Fathers who fashioned them is necessary. Chief among these Fathers stand the Cappadocians.

7.

Why the Cappadocians?

This chapter has situated Melanchthon’s appeals to the Cappadocians within the larger framework of his understanding of patristic authority. We began by discussing how the Reformation appropriated the values of Renaissance Humanism, particularly its zeal to return to the sources in their original languages and contexts. We then moved to discuss Melanchthon’s understanding of patristic authority by examining his understanding of history and its application to theological studies. Next, we saw how this understanding of history and the theological tradition should temper the commonly understood use of such terms as sola scriptura and the consensus antiquitatis. In the last section of this chapter, we saw that both just as the ancient authors established the proper grammar of language, the patristic authors established the proper grammar of theology. In some cases, we saw how the Cappadocians functioned as historical exemplars for the pedagogical and theological values Melanchthon held dear. With this examination in place, we are now prepared to develop fully the function of the Cappadocian Fathers in the works of Melanchthon. Before discussing their role in detail, we can identify the reasons why the Cappadocian Fathers were so important to Melanchthon from what has been said. First, the revival of classical rhetoric, ancient languages, and patristic tradition allowed the Reformers to claim the larger pedagogical, philosophical, and theological traditions in a more fundamental manner. That is, consonant with the Humanistic method, Melanchthon was far more interested in seeing a text as a complete work. One should refrain from merely excerpting an author. Instead, one should grasp the scopus of the work (i. e., its purpose and intent) as well as its composite loci. An appeal to the patristic Greek tradition, and the Cappadocians in particular, provided a defense against the charge of heresy and innovation. The appeal to the Greek Fathers was an appeal to catholicity in both theological method and content over against papal primacy. At the Leipzig Debate, Luther says he knew with certainty that Basil and Nyssa were in heaven, even though they knew not one papal decree.101 More than a defensive posture, however, an appeal to the Cappadocians was also necessary to articulate and reaffirm the basic dogmas and practices of orthodox Christianity against the Anabaptists and the anti-Trinitarians. Because Melanchthon viewed the relationship between Scripture and the Creeds as 101 See Grane, Martinus Noster, 101.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

66

Melanchthon’s Understanding of Patristic Authority

harmonious, he saw no contradiction between a simultaneous appeal to both Scripture and the tradition. Further, as I have argued, criticisms of Melanchthon in this regard reveal not the problems of Melanchthon’s argumentation but rather those of the critics. Finally, we must understand that Melanchthon’s interest in the Cappadocian Fathers and the larger patristic tradition reveals something fundamental about who he was. So far and in the chapters to come, I will speak of Melanchthon’s use of the Cappadocians. The necessary emphasis here is to show how, when, where, and why Melanchthon quoted the Cappadocian Fathers to advance a particular argument. In doing so, however, I must assert that Melanchthon’s appreciation of the Fathers was much deeper than such a functional or pro forma description might imply. The Cappadocians were dialogue partners for Melanchthon. The Cappadocians were eloquent men of learning who harnessed their knowledge to a deep and abiding love of Christ and His Church. This was Melanchthon’s own desire and one that he spent a long and fruitful lifetime encouraging his students to emulate.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Chapter 2: Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

The German Reformation is imperfectly described when it is considered as an appeal to scripture versus tradition. It was rather an appeal to history.1 – Mark Pattison One keeps forgetting to get right down to the foundations. One doesn’t put the question marks deep enough down.2 – Ludwig Wittgenstein Vestra est illa, Magistri nostri, non Lutheri theologia, quae a patribus dissentit. Ad vos tragica ista vestra pertinent, impios esse, qui ab Ecclesiae doctoribus variant.3 – Philip Melanchthon

1.

Introduction

The next piece in our understanding of the intellectual transition of the late medieval period and the context of the particular use of the Cappadocian Fathers by Melanchthon is in examining the influence of Greek patristic sources. As we saw in the previous chapter, it is not a matter of late medieval scholars developing a new interest in Greek classical and patristic sources. Origen, Basil, and John Chyrsostom played an essential role in the history of western exegesis and theological reflection. However, what was available of the Greek patristic tradition to Latin-speaking theologians of western Europe (either in Greek or in Latin translation) was relatively sparse, despite the efforts of theologians such as Rufinus of Aquileia, Dionysius Exiguus, and John Scotus Eriugena. It was not until the drastic change in the political fortunes and social stability of the By1 Mark Pattison, Isaac Casaubon, 1559 – 1614, 2nd edition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1892), 322. 2 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, ed. G. H. von Wright, trans. Peter Winch (Chicago: Chicago University, 1977), 62. 3 Against the Sorbonne (CR 1, 406).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

68

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

zantine Empire in the fifteenth century that Greek classical and patristic texts became more readily available to eager markets west of the Balkans. To understand the influence of Greek classical and patristic texts in the German territories of Melanchthon’s time, one must look to the prior efforts of Italian Humanists. In turn, an examination of the Renaissance in Italy prompts us to recognize the influence of Byzantine scholars in Rome, Florence, and Venice. In many ways, the flowering of the western European Renaissance had its roots in the tragedy of the fall of Byzantium. While the reputation of the Cappadocian Fathers as defenders of orthodoxy endured throughout the middle ages, many of their works did not. Yet, with the ecumenical efforts of the Council of Florence (1439) and the flood of refugees following the Fall of Constantinople (1453), previously unknown patristic texts flowed into western Europe. Under the patronage of Renaissance popes, prelates, and princes, these texts were both translated into Latin and printed in Greek editions. This western examination of the eastern patristic sources was initially undertaken to defend the Latin church’s articulation of the filioque as well as to affirm the glory of Rome as the last great remaining patriarchate. Soon, however, the Greek Fathers would be used as witnesses against the Roman patriarch’s hegemony and the legitimacy of the medieval Scholastic consensus.

2.

Greek Patristic Sources in Italy: Byzantine Editors and Translators

The introduction of patristic sources in Greek editions and Latin translations was the responsibility of a small but highly influential group of Byzantine scholars who had emigrated to Italy in the fifteenth century : Basil Bessarion, George Trebizond, Theodore Gaza, Marcus Musurus, and John Argyropoulos. Fluent in both Greek and Latin, these scholars were aided by the patronage of the great “Humanist Pope” Nicholas V and the Venetian printer Aldus Manutius. Because of these men, Florence, Rome, and Venice became the preeminent centers of classical and patristic scholarship in the fifteenth century. Basil Bessarion (ca. 1403 – 1472) was the eastern Orthodox Bishop of Nicaea and had been a Byzantine delegate to the Council of Florence, where he supported the Latin position concerning the filioque. In 1439, Pope Eugene IV made him a cardinal. Settling in Florence, Bessarion created a school for Greek studies and translated several classical and patristic Greek sources. He was recruited by Pope Nicholas V to continue his work in Rome (in an effort to make Rome a center of humanistic studies). In turn, Bessarion recruited Lorenzo Valla to help oversee the formation of the Vatican Library. The date and reason for George

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Greek Patristic Sources in Italy: Byzantine Editors and Translators

69

Trebizond’s (1395 – 1484) arrival in Italy are unknown. By the 1440s, however, he was a renowned teacher of both Latin and Greek, and he busied himself with translations of Aristotle. Pope Nicholas recruited Trebizond to Rome as well, where Trebizond became a Roman Catholic. In 1430, Theodore Gaza (ca.1400 – 1475) arrived in Italy after a brief imprisonment by the Turks as a prisoner of war. With Bessarion, he also served at the Council of Florence. Gaza later became a professor of Greek at the University of Ferrara before moving to Rome in 1450 at the behest of Bessarion. Gaza translated Aristotle into Latin, but he is most famous for his textbook on Greek grammar, posthumously published in 1495, which was the standard text in Western Europe for several years. John Argyropoulos (1415 – 1487) studied philosophy and theology at Constantinople before fleeing to Italy in 1453. He served as professor of Greek philosophy, literature, and grammar in Padua, and later in Florence and then Rome. The influence these men had on the intellectual development of Europe is grossly disproportionate to their small number.4 Each of these men served under the patronage of Pope Nicholas V (r. 1447 – 1455). He is considered an extraordinary administrator, statesman, and patron of the arts. Under his guidance, Scholastics had a more difficult time asserting that Humanism necessarily paved the way to schism and heresy.

2.1

The Aldine Press

In addition to the fortuitous pairing of these Greek emigrants and papal patronage, the partnership between Aldus Manutius (1449 – 1515) and Marcus Musurus (1470 – 1517) was a significant factor in the growing availability of 4 This is not to imply, however, that these Byzantine scholars consisted of a close and intellectually uniform group. These men imported the ongoing debate within Byzantium over the proper appropriation of Aristotle in theology and the subsequent debate over whether the philosophy of Plato or of Aristotle was in greater harmony with Christian theology. Two other important translators should be mentioned here. The first is Ambrogio Traversari, who translated Basil’s Adversus Eunomium because his patron Cardinal Cesarini believed the work supported the Latin position on the filioque. The second is Zanobio Acciainoli, Dominican friar and prefect of the Vatican Library who translated Eusebius’s In Hieroclem; Olympiodorus’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes; Theodoret of Cyrus’s De curatione Graecarum affectionum and De providentia Dei. In each case, this was the first time these works were available in Latin. The influence of these Byzantine ¦migr¦s on the intellectual development of Europe is discussed in Colin Wills, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World (New York: Delacorte, 2006); Charles Stinger, “Italian Renaissance Learning and the Church Fathers,” Reception of the Church Fathers, vol. 2, 473 – 510; John Monfasini, Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and other Emigres (Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1995); and N.G. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

70

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

Greek texts in western Europe. Manutius has studied Latin and Greek and, arriving in Venice in the 1480s, he established the Aldine Press. The Venetian Republic was spread throughout the Balkans and Aegean Sea, making it a natural port of entry and clearing house for an eager scholarly market. This press began printing editions of Greek and Latin classical and patristic texts that were relatively inexpensive but marked by quality production and clean formatting. His efforts helped make Venice the scholarly printing capital of Europe. Manutius recruited Marcus Musurus, a Cretan ¦migr¦, to oversee the editions of Greek pagan and patristic texts. Though not the first printer of Greek sources, the Aldine Press “brought Greek literature in the original before a wide reading public in the West for the first time.”5 By Manutius’ death in 1515, his press had published over thirty Greek editions, many of which made their way north.

3.

Christian Humanism in German Universities

The founding of German universities from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century is a study in the development of reforming ideals in pedagogy. In this section, I will briefly discuss the role given to Humanists’ principles at the major German universities at which Melanchthon studied and worked: Heidelberg, Tübingen, and Wittenberg. These universities (along with those at Erfurt and Leipzig) helped define the intellectual milieu of the early sixteenth century.

3.1

University of Heidelberg

The University of Heidelberg was founded in 1386 as a result of the Second Great Schism (1385 – 1415) caused by the Avignon Papacy.6 The University of Paris endorsed the anti-pope Clement VII (aka Robert of Geneva). German students at the University of Paris loyal to Pope Urban VI fled and established a university at Heidelberg. The university was founded with eleven faculty members: three 5 See Martin Lowry, The World of Aldus Manutius: Business and Scholarship in Renaissance Venice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1979); Nicolas Barker, Aldus Manutius and the Development of Greek Script and Type in the Fifteenth Century (Sandy Hook, CT: Chiswick, 1985); H. George Fletcher, New Aldine Studies: Documentary Essays on the Life and Work of Aldus Manutius (San Francisco: B. M. Rosenthal, 1988); and Martin Davies, Aldus Manutius: Printer and Publisher of Renaissance Venice (Malibu, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1995). See also Colin Wills, Sailing from Byzantium, 112. 6 See Gerhard Hinz, ed., Aus der Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg und ihre Fakultäten (Heidelberg: Bransdruck, 1961), and Justine M. Grothe, “Cistercians and Higher Education in the Late Middle Ages with a Special Reference to Heidelberg University” (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1975). See also Scheible, Melanchthon, 16 – 17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Christian Humanism in German Universities

71

professors of theology, three professors of law, three professors of philosophy, one professor of medicine, and one lecturer in the artes liberales. Both the via antiqua and the via moderna were taught. Under the first rector, Marsilius von Inghen, a moderate Occamism prevailed. Under the influence of the Elector Philipp (1476 – 1508) and university chancellor and the bishop of Worms, Johann von Dahlberg, many Humanists were recruited to the faculty, including the rhetorician Johann Agricola (†1485) and the poet Conrad Celtis (†1508). Some faculty was very critical of Scholasticism and clerical immorality, including Johann Wenck von Herrenberg (who wrote De ignota litteratura, 1442) and Jacob Wimpfeling (who wrote Isidoneus germanicus, 1496). Many students at Heidelberg would be won over by Luther’s appeal to Paul and Augustine during the Heidelberg Disputation (April 1518). Of those students, some become reformers in their own right: Johannes Brenz (1499 – 1570), Martin Bucer (1491 – 1551), and Theobald Billicanus (1493 – 1554). Yet, as at Erfurt, the faculty and princely patrons were not nearly as enthusiastic as the students for reform. It was not until 1558 that Elector Ottheinrich (r. 1556 – 59) reformed the university statutes. Under his successor, Elector Frederick III (r. 1559 – 76), the theology faculty firmly subscribed to the Reformed tradition.

3.2

University of Tübingen

The University of Tübingen was founded by Count (later Duke) Eberhard VI in 1477.7 He was inspired to establish the university as a result of his introduction to Humanism during his travels through northern Italy. Much of the early faculty was recruited from the University of Basel, including Jurist Johannes Vergenhans (1425 – 1510) and theologian Johannes Heynlin von Stein (ca. 1430/33 – 1496), who served as the first two rectors at Tübingen. Funding for the theology faculty was provided by making the parish church of St. George a collegiate church and its endowment used to support four professors (three for theology and one for canon law). Due to a dispute over funding, the Franciscan (in 1477) and the Augustinian Hermit (after 1479) orders were allowed to teach on the faculty but were not given chairs. The most famous member of the faculty was Gabriel Biel, who taught on the faculty from 1484 – 1492. His pupil was Wendelin Steinbach (1489 – 1519), who edited Biel’s works and taught Melanchthon. Many prominent Humanists were added to the faculty, including: Conrad Summenhart (taught 1489 – 1502), the 7 See Ulrich Köpf, “Tübingen Universität,” TRE, vol. 34, 157 – 65, esp. 157 – 60, Oberman, Masters of the Reformation, 15 – 43, and Scheible, Melanchthon, 20 – 22.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

72

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

philologist and jurist Georg Simler (1475 – 1535), the mathematician (which was synonymous with astrologer) and astronomer Johannes Stöffler (1452 – 1531), the rhetorician Heinrich Bebel (taught 1497 – 1518), and the jurist Martin Prenninger (aka Uranius), who was a pupil of Marcillio Ficino. Added to this Humanist circle was the esteemed Hebraicist and jurist Johannes Reuchlin, who resided in Tübingen. During his matriculation from 1512 – 1518, these men would have profound influence upon Melanchthon’s intellectual development. In 1536, the Reformation was officially incorporated into the curriculum of the university through the efforts of Duke Ullrich and led by Ambrosius Blarer (1492 – 1564), Simon Grynaeus (1493 – 1541), and Johannes Brenz. Melanchthon returned to his alma mater during this time as an advisor.

3.3

University of Wittenberg

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Saxony had grown into a large and powerful territory.8 Leipzig was a wealthy trade city, known especially for its annual book fairs and its university. Three ecclesiastical centers were within its borders as well: the archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Meissen, and the ancient monastic-fortress town of Quedlinburg. The Golden Bull of 1356 established the procedures by which the Holy Roman Emperor would be elected. At that time, the Emperor Charles IV named the Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg one of seven imperial “Electors,” which became a hereditary right and obligation. In addition to its political, ecclesiastical, and commercial importance, Saxony was a land rich in agriculture, metals, and minerals. In 1485, two brothers — Ernst and Albrecht — split their territorial inheritance in two. The younger brother, Albrecht, took the wealthier portion, which included the University of Leipzig; this section was hereafter (until 1547) known as “Ducal” or “Albertine” Saxony. The elder brother, Ernst, retained the rights and duties of “Elector.” His son, Frederick III (aka “the Wise,” 1463 – 1525), wanted to see his inherited portion of territory develop into a land worthy of its electoral status. One of the first things he did toward this end was to 8 For general information, see Heiner Lück, “Wittenberg Universität,” TRE, vol. 36, 232 – 42, esp. 232 – 35 and 237 – 39. For more specific information on the role of Humanism in Wittenberg, see Günther Wartenberg and Michael Beyer, ed., Humanismus und Wittenberg Reformation (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996), Helmar Junghans, Martin Luther und Wittenberg (Munich: Koehler and Amelang, 1996) and Der Mitteldeutsche Renaissancehumanismus: Nährboden der Frühen Neuzeit (Leipzig: Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004), Robert Rosin, “The Reformation, Humanism, and Education: The Wittenberg Model of Reform,” Concordia Journal 16 (1990): 301 – 18, and Jens-Martin Kruse, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: Die Anfänge der Reformation in Wittenberg, 1516 – 1522 (Mainz: von Zabern, 2002).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Christian Humanism in German Universities

73

establish the University of Wittenberg in 1502.9 Frederick chose Wittenberg, a small town on the Elbe, because it was not only an ancestral seat of the Wettin dynasty but also because an Augustinian house was already established there (1364). These Augustinian Hermits had created a center of learning by sponsoring various literary societies in the late fifteenth century, which fostered the study of poetry and the classics.10 The earliest acquisitions of the university library are difficult to trace. We know that Frederick the Wise began accumulating books for his own library — which would become the basis of the university library — in 1493.11 In 1512, Spalatin wrote to the Venetian printer Aldus Manutius requesting a complete catalogue of his books, especially those available in Greek and Hebrew. In 1515, the printer sent books to Wittenberg but it is not clear which books were included. Also in 1512, Spalatin purchased 153 books from Wolfgang Fries. Of these books, thirteen were works of the Fathers.12 Around 1521, Spalatin acquired some manuscripts from the holdings of the nobleman Sigismond von Lubkowitz-Hassenstein. This collection contained works by Basil and Nazianzen, and a few Greek authors. Melanchthon wrote to Spalatin, conveying his evaluation of these works.13 Our knowledge of the Wittenberg library acquisitions is pieced together from assorted letters and two catalogues Spalatin made in 1536; one organized by author, the other by subject.14 A review of the catalogue reveals a concerted effort by Spalatin to acquire as many works as possible of the Latin and Greek Fathers as well as church histories. Concerning the Cappadocians, we learn that the Wittenberg library held three works by Basil (in Latin), four works by Gregory Nazianzen (two in Greek, two in Latin), one book by Gregory of Nyssa (in Latin), 9 The most comprehensive study of Frederick is by Ingetraut Ludolphy, Friedrich der Weise, Kurfürst von Sachsen, 1463 – 1525 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). 10 In addition to the sources mentioned earlier, more helpful information on the pre-Reformation Wittenberg curriculum can be found in Maria Grossman, Humanism at Wittenberg, 1485 – 1517 (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1975), Gustav Bauch, “Die Anfänge des Studiums der griechischen Sprache und Literatur in Norddeutschland,” Mittelungen der Gesellschaft für deutsche Erziehungs– und Schulgeschichte (1896), 47 – 98, 163 – 193; and Karl Bauer, Die Wittenberger Universitätstheologie und die Anfänge der Deutschen Reformation (Tübingen: Mohr, 1928). 11 Ludolphy, Friedrich der Weise, 351 – 54. 12 Grossman, Humanism at Wittenberg, 109. 13 Letter to Georg Spalatin, ca. 20 November 1522 (MBW 247 [T1, 510] = CR 1, 547). According to notation made in the MBW, the work of Basil mentioned in the letter is Basilii Caesariensis Homiliae et epistulae, currently held at the Prague University library, Lobkovick‚ Roudnick‚ Knihovna Cod. VI Fa 7. For Nazianzen, see Olivier/Mon¦gier du Sorbier, S. XXIII; Mitis, Bl. E4b. Because these works are manuscripts, they are not included in the Wittenberg catalogue. 14 The library holdings of Wittenberg University in 1536 are printed in Sachiko Kusukawa, A Wittenberg University Catalogue of 1536 (Cambridge: LP Publications, 1995).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

74

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

three works by Origen (in Latin) and none by Gregory Thaumaturgus. To this collection can be added four florilegia, two volumes of ancient counciliar canons, two copies of Ecclesiastica et Tripartita historia, one copy of just Eusbius’s Historia ecclesiastica, and one copy of Jerome’s De viribus illustribus.15 The content of this collection is discussed in greater detail in Appendix One. 3.3.1 Greek and Rhetoric at Wittenberg Melanchthon was called to be professor of Greek and Rhetoric despite the University’s first attempt to recruit the older, more established scholar Peter Mosellanus from the University of Leipzig.16 While Melanchthon was the first to hold this chair, he was not the first to lecture on the subject there. Grossman lists up to six tutors of Greek at Wittenberg before Melanchthon.17 One, Johannes Lang, deserves particular note. It is said that he owned over 600 Greek books — an amazing number of books for any one person to own at this time. Even if this number is inflated, it tells us something of the status of Greek literature in the early sixteenth century : general knowledge of the language was rare; nonetheless, there were materials available to those with the interest and capability. Lang was also the one who introduced Luther to Greek (though it was under Melanchthon that Luther received extensive tutoring). Greek and Hebrew were added to the theology curriculum so that lectures on Sacred Scripture could focus on the text itself and not only on the commentaries.18 Also of note is that in 1501 Nicholaus Markschalk arrived from Erfurt to become the first printer in Wittenberg. His first Wittenberg edition featured Greek type and, when he became professor of arts in 1503, he printed his inaugural lecture on the Judgment 15 A more specific record of the other texts mentioned above is listed here by title and their assigned number listed by Kusukawa: Orthodoxoru[m] patru[m] (141a), Theologus vetus in epistolam ad Romanos (361a), and Apopthegmata (984b); Concilior[um] vet. generaliu[m], tom. I (208) and Concilior[um] vet. generaliu[m], tomus II (209); Ecclesiastica historia Eusebij. Tripartita historia a Beato Rhenano recognitae (454) and Ecclesiastica et Tripartita historia (496b); Eusebij Chronicon (455a); and Jerome’s Vitae sactoru[m] patru[m] (519). 16 While stopping in Leipzig on his way to Wittenberg, the faculty tried to steal Melanchthon away by offering a professorship at twice the salary Wittenberg was offering; see MBW 21/CR 1, 42. 17 Grossman, Humanism at Wittenberg, 49. 18 These developments were aided by the publication of Rudolph Agricola’s De inventione dialectica (1479), Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (1516) and Reuchlin’s De rudimentis hebraicis (1506). While Luther praised the restoration of Greek and Hebrew to the university, he was critical of a Christian Humanism that praised the study of ancient languages in their own right. For instance, Luther argued that knowledge of biblical languages was a necessary but insufficient requisite for interpretation. He compared Erasmus to Jerome, saying that while Jerome knew the biblical languages, he was not as good an interpreter of Scripture as Augustine, who knew neither sufficient Hebrew nor Greek; see Grossman, Humanism at Wittenberg, 82.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Education and Early Career

75

of Paris in Latin and in Greek. The first Wittenberg printed edition entirely in Greek was the Batachomiomachia of Homer (actually, Pigres of Halicarnassos) in 1513. While not exhaustive, this survey of what was available at the leading universities of the German territories shows us that Greek classical and patristic studies had a firm foot hold but were still incomplete and developing. This reaffirms Erika Rummel’s depiction of a generational development in Humanist studies.19 The first generation (those born between 1450 and 1470) and second (those born between 1470 and 1490) established the foundation upon which the third generation of Humanists (those born after 1490) would flourish. This third generation would benefit from the work of previous generations to both carve out a place within the university curriculum for Humanists and help create the zenith of newly available classical and patristic sources. Thus, it was this third generation, in many ways modeled by Melanchthon, that would bring the full weight of both realities to bear upon the pressing religious controversies of the Reformation (though they were hardly uniform in their confessional alliances).

4.

Melanchthon’s Education and Early Career

4.1

Early Education

On 16 February 1497, Philip was born to Georg and Barbara Schwartzerdt. Georg was a skilled armorer for the Elector of the Palatinate and, for a short time, also to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian. Philip’s maternal grandfather, Johannes Reuter, was a merchant and twice Lord Mayor of Bretten. As a scion of a prominent local family, Philip’s earliest education was entrusted to a private tutor in the home, Johannes Unger. Under his tutelage, young Philip quickly became a master of Latin.20 At the age of 10, as the result of the death of his father and grandfather, Philip’s education was continued at the Latin School in Pforzheim, then under the direction of Georg Simler. There Philip resided with a relative, Elizabeth Reuter. She was the sister of the famed jurist and hebraicist Johannes Reuchlin (1455 – 1522).21 Reuchlin took an active role in his young 19 Rummel, Scholastic-Humanist Debate, 130 – 32. 20 Scheible, Melanchthon, 13. So gifted was the young Philip that he was often presented to any scholars who happened to be traveling through the busy commercial city of Bretten; a circumstance celebrated in a large mural in the Gedächtnishalle of the Melanchthonhaus, Bretten. See Stefan Rhein and Gerhard Schwinge, eds., Das Melanchthonhaus Bretten: Ein Beispiel des Reformationsgedenkens der Jahrhundertwende (Ubstadt-Weiher : Relgionalkultur, 1997). 21 In 1498, Reuchlin traveled to Rome, where he acquired many books in Greek and Hebrew. He

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

76

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

relative’s education, serving as a kind of patron. It was Reuchlin who arranged for Philip to study in Pforzheim. In recognition of his mastery of classical languages and as an inauguration into higher studies, Reuchlin also gave young Philip a Greek grammar inscribed with the Hellenized version of his family name: “Melanchthon.”22 Georg Simler was a member of the Humanist circle around Reuchlin, and had studied in the universities in Leipzig, Cologne (where Hermann von dem Busche was professor and where he might have studied with Peter Mosellanus), and Heidelberg. The Latin Schools in Pforzheim were already famous, and Simler had a reputation not only for his learning but also for his skills as a teacher.23 There the boys were introduced to basic grammar as well as poetry and philosophical works by Latin and Greek authors (especially Aristotle). Simler’s school drew the best and brightest students from the region. There, though Melanchthon was the youngest pupil he was also the brightest, so much so that he was quickly given the task of instructing the first-level students.24 Here, Melanchthon not only perfected his Latin but also began to master Greek. One gains a sense of just how small a world the Humanist circles of Germany were: Melanchthon was a relative of Reuchlin, who in turn knew Georg Simler well; Simler studied under Hermann von dem Busche and with Peter Mosellanus and Konrad Wimpina; Hermann von dem Busche gave the laudatory lecture at the opening of Wittenberg University, Peter Mosellanus would become a professor of Greek at Leipzig, and Konrad Wimpina would become an early opponent of Luther. Moreover, Melanchthon was not the only gifted student nurtured by Simler’s tutelage. Former students and future leading Humanists included the Strassburg Reformer Wolfgang Capito (1478 – 1541), the noted Greek and Latin philologist Simon Grynaeus (1493 – 1541), the historian Caspar Hedio (1494 – 1552), and the theologian Matthias Erb (1494 – 1571). By the age of twelve, Melanchthon had not only been drawn into a circle of the most elite philologists of southwestern Germany but had also, even among this august company of elders and colleagues, made a name for himself as a rising star.

translated many Greek texts and was one of the first German scholars to promote Greek and Hebrew studies. His Hebrew grammar and lexicon, De rudimentis hebraicis, appeared in 1506. His interest in Hebrew was also related to his belief, like that of Pico della Mirandola, that the Kabbala offered a mystical philosophy that could unlock the deeper truths of the Christian faith; see De arte cabbalistica (1517). For more on Reuchlin’s influence on Melanchthon, see Heinz Scheible, “Reuchlins Einfluß auf Melanchthon,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 71 – 97. 22 Scheible, Melanchthon, 15 – 6. 23 For more on the school at Pforzheim, see Heinz Scheible, “Melanchthons Pforzheimer Schulzeit,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 29 – 70. 24 Scheible, Melanchthon, 15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Education and Early Career

4.2

77

Melanchthon’s University Education

At the age of twelve, Melanchthon matriculated at the University of Heidelberg; though certainly young, this was not uncommon. Perhaps on the recommendation of Reuchlin, Melanchthon registered in the school of arts according to the via antiqua and resided at the home of Pallus Spangel, professor of theology and dean of the theology faculty. Melanchthon studied the trivium (grammar, logic/dialectic, and rhetoric). While mastering these basic skills, he continued his study of Greek and history. In Heidelberg, as in Pforzheim, Melanchthon circulated among the elite Humanists of the university. Surely his entrance into this cohort was a result of Reuchlin’s introduction but there can also be little doubt that Melanchthon’s quick mind and linguistic skills cemented his place within the circle. One of Melanchthon’s poems was published in a biography of the noted theologian and professor of rhetoric Jacob Wimpfeling. Melanchthon also made the acquaintance not only of famous rhetoricians, astronomers, and imperial as well as ecclesiastical counselors but also individuals who would become famous, such as Jacob and Peter Sturm, Johannes Brentz, Martin Bucer, and the princes Ludwig and Friedrich von Löwenstein.25 On 10 June 1511, Melanchthon was awarded the Bachelor of Arts degree. He then began course work for the Master of Arts degree, which he would have earned a year later had the faculty not denied him due to his “youth and boyish appearance.”26 On 17 September 1512, Melanchthon then matriculated at the University of Tübingen. In addition to any frustration he may have felt in being denied the degree, the move could also have been prompted by either his health (he did not like the climate in Heidelberg) or the death of Spangel.27 At Tübingen, Melanchthon registered in the via moderna, perhaps to broaden his education. Here he studied Occam and the works of Nominalist John Wessel (1420 – 1489). He also studied the classical authors Virgil, Cicero, Hesiod, and Galen, as well as astronomy with the famous Johannes Stöffler.28 On 25 January 1514, Melanchthon was awarded the Master of Arts degree. After earning his degree, he was, according to custom, obliged to remain at the University to teach for two years. During this time, Melanchthon attended the lectures in the Theology faculty. He had also reunited with Georg Simler, who had come to Tübingen to study law, and Reuchlin, now an imperial judge, who resided there. While attending lectures in theology, Melanchthon was particularly influenced by two professors. Melanchthon mocked professor Jakob Lemp’s attempt 25 26 27 28

Scheible, Melanchthon, 18 – 20. Scheible Melanchthon, 20. See also CR 10, 260. Scheible, Melanchthon, 20, where he describes the weather of Heidelberg as unhealthy. Scheible, Melanchthon, 21.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

78

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

to demonstrate the doctrine of transubstantiation on the chalkboard. On the other hand, professor Wendelin Steinbach was an ardent student of both Scripture and Augustine and was very critical of Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Most important, however, are the friendships he forged with Johannes Oecolampadius (1482 – 1531) and Ambrosius Blarer (1492 – 1564). Oecolampadius would become a great philologist and Swiss Reformer in his own right. Melanchthon and Oecolampadius met regularly to read Hesiod together and to study astronomy. After departing Tübingen in 1515 in order to work for Erasmus in Basel, Oecolampadius gave Melanchthon a newly printed copy of Agricola’s book on dialectic, which is credited with shaping Melanchthon didactic use of the loci method.29 Under Ambrosius Blarer, Melanchthon honed his mastery of classical literature and poetry through reading the works of Angelo Poliziano. During this time, the contents of Reuchin’s library — full of classical authors and manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew — were always available to him.30 In addition to his mastery of Greek and Latin, Melanchthon also learned Hebrew well enough to teach it to others.31 Melanchthon was also employed as a text editor by the printer Thomas Anshelm (formerly of Pforzheim). Melanchthon continued his scholarly work: he wrote a preface to Bartholomew of Cologne’s Dialogus Mythologicus; composed a preface to the comedies of Terence; and translated works of Plutarch, Pythagoras, and Lycides.32 He also pledged to oversee a critical edition of the complete works of Aristotle; this remained his desire throughout his life, but the work never came to fruition. He also published poetry that caught the attention and praise of Erasmus.33 His greatest scholarly achievement at this time was to complete his textbook, the Rudiments of the Greek Language, in 1518. This work would seal his fame as a philologist and would undergo repeated printings. He also began work on textbooks for dialectic and rhetoric. The exact nature of which Cappadocian sources Melanchthon would have been exposed to during his education is impossible to discern. Yet, it is possible to sketch out some broad strokes. First, a student of Melanchthon’s time would have been exposed to various Fathers while attending lectures, especially through the conduit of references found in Scotus, Aquinas, Occam, Gratian, and Lombard.34 Further, as we have seen, it can be said that the twenty-year old 29 30 31 32

Scheible, Melanchthon, 22. For Melanchthon’s reference to Reuchlin’s library, see Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum, 21. Scheible, Melanchthon, 22 – 3. Scheible, Melanchthon, 24. For an excellent survey of Melanchthon’s life-long engagement with classical sources, see Stefan Rhein, Philologie und Dichtung. Melanchthons griechische Gedichte (Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar). 2 vol. Diss. Heidelberg 1987. 33 Scheible, Melanchthon, 25. 34 For an insightful examination of the patristic sources available to a scholar in the early

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Education and Early Career

79

Melanchthon was already very familiar with the works of many classical and patristic authors in Latin and Greek. What is more, his mastery of classical philology would prepare him to be able to read and use any subsequent classical or patristic sources that became know. An attempt to fill in more detail about the specific works by the Cappadocian Fathers that Melanchthon read, and in which form and edition he read them, is made in each chapter of this book and in Appendix One. At this juncture, we can form the context of Melanchthon’s lifelong interest and stated appreciation for the Cappadocian Fathers by viewing his orations on, translations of, and patrologies concerning them. What we see is that as Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg, he was already one of the most gifted and celebrated philologists of his time and the Cappadocian Fathers were the subject of his attention.

4.3

Professor of Greek and Rhetoric and Student of Theology

On 26 August 1518, Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg. There he filled the newly established chair for Greek and Rhetoric. He gave his famous inaugural address, De corrigendis adulescentiae studiis, on the necessary reform of the university curriculum two days later. Melanchthon’s first lectures were on the Iliad and the Epistle to Titus, both read in Greek. He then offered lectures on selected texts from Plutarch and Pindar. For students whose Greek was not as advanced, he offered lectures on the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and perhaps also the Epistle of James. In addition to these lectures, he completed his textbooks on Rhetoric (1519) and Dialectic (1520). From January of 1519 to April of 1520, Melanchthon was also the acting lecturer in Hebrew, replacing professor Johannes Böschenstein who left for vacation and never returned. In the summer of 1521, Melanchthon lectured on Virgil, the Clouds of Aristophanes, Lucian, Cicero, Hesiod, and Arator (the sixth-century Christian poet and author of De actibus apostolorum).35 It should be noted here that Melanchthon became a student at Wittenberg as well as a professor, as was fairly typical. He attended lectures in theology. On 19 September 1519, Melanchthon obtained his Bachelor of the Bible degree (baccalaureus biblicus), and began lectures on the Gospel of Matthew and then the Epistle to the Romans according to the Vulgate. He also lectured on the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Gospel of John during Luther’s absence during the trial at the Diet of Worms and subsequent enclosure in the Wartburg. By 1521, sixteenth century, particularly in the practice of biblical exegesis, see Timothy J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon’s ‘Annotationes in Johannem’ in Relation to its Predecessors and Contemporaries (Geneva: Droz, 1987). 35 Scheible, Melanchthon, 31 – 2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

80

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

Melanchthon had also completed the necessary requirements to become a Sententarius; one who had studied and successfully passed an examination on Peter Lombard’s collection of patristic citations, the Sentences. But instead of sitting for the traditional exam, Melanchthon chose to pen his own theological work (the Loci communes) as a sign of his theological credentials (and his status as a married man may have also prevented him from taking the exam).36 Responsibilities in the Arts and Theology faculties doubled Melanchthon’s work, though not his salary. Scheible also provides us with an interesting view of both the students’ and Melanchthon’s schedules. Melanchthon’s reform of primary education called for three levels of students, who should be given great variety in their lectures. Primary students were introduced to Aesop, Terence, and Plautus as well as the Paedologia of Mosellanus and the Colloquia of Erasmus. A typical schedule for a student at Wittenberg might look something like that of the young Duke John Frederick of Pomerania, which was personally arranged by Melanchthon as Rector : Every morning, a chapter from the Old Testament a Psalm, and a prayer; Every evening, a chapter from the New Testament, a Psalm, and a prayer. Monday and Tuesday mornings: an hour reading of Cicero’s letters, Terence, Virgil, or Livy, followed by grammar and syntax exercises from the text. After lunch on those days, he was assigned: physical fitness, music, a repetition of the grammar from that morning, readings from either Cicero’s De officiis or De amicitia, and then a reading from a historian, likely Sallust. Wednesdays were given over to catechetical instruction and composition of prose and poetry. Thursday and Friday the student spent another hour on dialectic and in the afternoon, an hour on rhetoric. Saturdays, the student should study theology, either from the works of St. Paul or Proverbs. On holidays [!], the students should review history. Melanchthon’s teaching schedule in 1557 is known from the course selections of Wittenberg University student Caesar von Pflug: Monday, Dialectic; Tuesday, Cicero’s De officiis; Wednesday and Saturday, History ; Thursday, the Epistle to the Colossians; Friday, the Nicene Creed. Sundays and holidays, Melanchthon also often gave the catechetical sermons on the gospel readings appointed for the day in Latin. From 1523 – 1524, Melanchthon was also elected Rector of the University. During this time, he continued to lecture, compose academic orations, and theological treatises. One biography says that Melanchthon began his days at 2:00 a.m.37 Finally, in 1525, when John became the Elector and ownership of the 36 A more detailed account of the preceding information is found in Scheible, Melanchthon, 32 – 40. 37 Manschreck, Quiet Reformer, 50. Manschreck does not, however, indicate how he knows this, though perhaps he is assuming the pre-industrial habit of segmented sleep; see A. Roger

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Education and Early Career

81

university passed to him at his brother’s death, the structure of the University was reformed. Luther, who as a monk received no salary, would now receive with Melanchthon 200 Gulden a year ; this was the highest salary at Wittenberg, equivalent to a professor of Law.38 Luther and Melanchthon were also allowed to lecture on whatever topic they wished, and Melanchthon was freed from his duties as Chair of Greek and Rhetoric when the position was filled by another. This was of benefit to the students, as there were now two professors of Greek at Wittenberg. Melanchthon was a very popular (though demanding) professor, and his lectures were well attended. Yet, the study of Greek was not as popular as Melanchthon had hoped. The theological criticism of Scholastic Aristotelianism meant that many students were not interested in the philosophy of Aristotle. Students also chafed at the idea of still having to study the trivium; being in the midst of an exciting intellectual time and studying at the epicenter of theological debate, many students saw such preparation as tedious and useless.39 Even as late as 1533, Melanchthon complained that the study of Greek remained one of the most despised things in the world.40 It is difficult to know how much weight should be given to this statement. Nonetheless, it does illustrate the effort to which Melanchthon had to go to encourage the slow but ultimately rewarding work of mastering ancient languages and texts. Following the logico-historical method of emulating the great classical authors, Melanchthon exhorted his students to study diligently grammar and the ancients: “By contact with them it happens that the reader acquires something of their judgment, just as those who walk about in the sun become tanned.”41

38 39

40 41

Eckirch At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past (New York: W. W. Norton), 2005. As Scheible notes, when Melanchthon died several faculty members had to cover the duties once assumed by one man. See Scheible, Melanchthon, 43, 49 – 50. Scheible, Melanchthon, 41. Scheible, Melanchthon, 35. Throughout his career, Melanchthon repeatedly emphasized the importance of rhetorical studies and the necessity of eloquence, lest the younger generation fall prey to the same linguistic and — by necessary extension — logical errors of the Scholastics. As an example, he took aim at the Scholasticism of the Sorbonne, In Praise of Eloquence, 1523 (CR 11, 65); for the English translation, see Kusukawa, Orations on Philosophy and Education, 74 – 5). See “On the Study of Languages,” CR 11, 231 – 39; Orations, 29 – 37. See In Praise of Eloquence, 1523 (CR 11, 50 – 66; MSA 3, 44 – 62; Kusukawa, Orations, 66).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

82

5.

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

Melanchthon’s Patristic Lectures and Knowledge of Cappadocian Material

Melanchthon not only read patristic texts and used them in his theological treatises, he translated some patristic sources himself and incorporated them into his lectures. His earliest focus was on Gregory Nazianzen. Melanchthon shows a knowledge of Gregory as early as 1519, when he cites the Cappadocian against Johannes Eck.42 That same year, Melanchthon made his own translation of Gregory’s Paschal Sermon from 363 (Sermo in secunda Encenia quae verna quoque dicuntur).43 In the prefatory letter, in which Melanchthon dedicated the work to the Vicar General of the Augustinian Order in Germany Johann Staupitz, Melanchthon apologizes that he made the translation “hurriedly and carelessly” (obiter et ut aiunt suspensa manu).44 This translation of Gregory’s work reveals a concerted effort early in Melanchthon’s career to make patristic texts available to his students. Also in 1519, Peter Mosellanus translated Gregory Nazianzen’s First Theological Oration from the Greek.45 It is worth noting here, as will be detailed elsewhere, that Gregory Nazianzen’s Five Theological Orations were very important to Melanchthon for both their theological content as well as the exemplary grammar of Gregory’s pen. Through the repeated citation of stock phrases, we can see that the Theological Orations held a central place in Melanchthon’s affirmations of and appeals to the orthodox articulation of Christological and Trinitarian theology throughout his career.46 Melanchthon first lectured on Gregory’s Theological Orations in 1521. Ac-

42 Epistola de Lipsica disputationes, 1519 (MBW 59 [T1, 132 – 141]/CR 1, 87 – 96). 43 VD16 G3093. Gregory’s sermon from 363 is found in PG 35, 935; CPG §3010. 44 It seems that this edition is no longer extant. All that remains is the preface. See MBW 64 [T1, 147 – 48]. 45 De Theologia liber primus, divi Gregorii cognomento theologi, episcopi Nazianzeni, de Theologia liber primus, Petro Mosellano protegensa interprete (Leipzig: Melchior Lotter, 1519); VD16 G3094. 46 The first stock quotation from the Theological Orations, cited in Greek, is from Disputatio, 1554 (CR 12, 610 & 622). This quotation is repeated in the Explicatio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 501); the Questio Academica, 1555 (CR 10, 849 & 882); the Declamatio de Gregorio Nazianzeno, 1558 (CR 12, 283); and Postilla Melanchthonis, n.d. (CR 25, 18). Per Meijering, this quotation is from Oration 30, 20 (= Theological Oration IV, 20) (PG 36, 129; CPG §3010). The second stock quotation is also from the Theological Orations. This time, it is an almost literal quotation from Oration V, 3 (PG 36, 136; CPG §3010). See also Letter to Calvin, 1554 (MBW 7306/CR 8, 362) (note Melanchthon’s criticism that few sentences on the right knowledge of God can be found in Gregory!). This quotation is repeated in a Letter to Victorin Strigel, 1552 (MBW 6543/CR 7, 1057); Letter to Aurifaber & Chytraeus, 1552 (MBW 6558/CR 7, 1068); and a second Letter to Strigel, 1553 (MBW 6543/CR 8, 191).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Patristic Lectures and Knowledge of Cappadocian Material

83

cording to Beneszewicz, he used the Aldine edition of 1516.47 These lectures appear to be the fruit of much concerted effort to incorporate into the curriculum patristic lectures in general and lectures on Greek patristic sources specifically. In the early days of his career at Wittenberg, Melanchthon wrote several letters to Spalatin requesting and suggesting material as Spalatin sought to expand the University library. In 1521, Melanchthon made inquiries into the holdings of the library at Worms for the patristic sources on which he would like to lecture, dated 24 January and 8 February, respectively. Melanchthon also wrote to friends who might be travelling by large libraries, asking them to explore their holdings for Greek theologians, such as a letter to Georg Ebner dated 12 February 1521 who was travelling through Coburg. There are also letters from Melanchthon to Oecolampadius and Willibald Pirkheimer, requesting the same.48 In addition to using his own translation of Gregory Nazianzen’s Paschal sermon and the existing translations of the Theological Orations, Melanchthon created three other editions of patristic works. These were little handbook introductions to the Fathers from which Melanchthon (and others) lectured as part of a series, published locally by Melchior Lotter.49 Fraenkel states that the first 47 MSA 6, 177. 48 Letters to Spalatin: (MBW 119 & 120 [T1, 245 – 48]/CR 1 280 & 282; see also MSA 6/1, 125). Letters to Ebner: (MBW 124 [T1, 253]/CR 20, 706). There are repeated references to the need to publish Greek Fathers as a necessary aid to theology : Letter to Spalatin, 2 March 1521 (MBW 128 [T1, 263]/CR 1, 361) and another Letter to Spalatin, 2 April 1521 (MBW134 [T1, 273]/CR 1, 365). Melanchthon also wrote three times to Oecolampadius with similar requests but to no avail, as Melanchthon noted in a letter to Pirkheimer in late September 1521 (MBW 171 [T1, 354 – 55]). Fraenkel is quite correct to assert that this early desire to find, translate, and use Greek patristic sources in general and Cappadocian works in general indicate that Melanchthon was no latecomer to Greek patristic texts (against Herrlinger who proposed that Melanchthon came to the Greeks after disappointment in Augustine’s teaching on predestination). See Fraenkel, Testimonia, 17, n. 26. 49 The dating and exact content of these editions is subject to debate. I am following Fraenkel’s evaluation in his dialogue with the conclusions of Vladimir N. Beneszewicz, Melanchthoniana: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des byzantinischen Rechts in Westeuropa, 1521 – 1560 (Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934). Beneszewicz discovered that in 1521 Melanchthon had produced the first Greek edition of the Apostolic Canons in western Europe. If so, it is not clear from whom Melanchthon received a copy of the Apostolic Canons. Melanchthon’s preface to the Canons is found in Canones apostolici promiscue a graecis Episcopis congesti, July 1521 (MBW 156 [T1, 321 – 22]). Beneszewicz’s work reproduces Melanchthon’s early editions and notes on the Apostolic Canons, as well as the First Theological Oration by Gregory Nazianzen, and biographical sketches of Origen and Gregory Thaumaturgus (121 – 24 and 126). The Apostolic Canons are a list of eighty-five regulations originally appended to the conclusion of the Apostolic Constitutions. As a result of some of the canons of the Apostolic Constitutions being found heretical at the Council in Trullo (692/693), the Apostolic Canons were separated out and copied independently. The work was highly esteemed up through the Renaissance and was widely available in a Latin

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

84

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

edition included Gregory Nazianzen’s First Theological Oration against the Eunomians and the Apostolic Canons.50 The second is a translation of an ancient compilation of sermons by John Chrysostom, entitled De magistratibus.51 According to Fraenkel, this edition also included the previously published First Theological Oration and the two might have been published together as “a response to the riots that took place in Wittenberg during the winter 1521 – 22.”52 If this edition is the same as G3092, published in 1520, Fraenkel’s hypothesis cannot hold unless we find evidence of a reprint that corresponds to the subsequent social upheaval. Finally, perhaps around 1523, Melanchthon published other Latin translations of Greek sources, namely, excerpts of the biographical sketches of Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Lucian, and Paphnutius from the Suida Lexicon.53 The historical record of Melanchthon’s earnest and concerted effort to find, use, and disseminate among his students in the Arts and Theology now established, it is helpful to turn to one of the sharpest criticisms of Melanchthon and his use of patristic sources. Previously, we made note of Meijering’s claim that as the older Melanchthon became mired in the Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the 1530s and 1540s, he was forced to engage in the idle speculation of these matters which he had so earnestly decried in 1521.54 Paying attention to these early translation efforts and lectures on these patristic sources indicates that the young Melanchthon was already in dialogue with patristic

50

51 52 53

54

translation made by Dionysius Exiguus. The Greek text, with French translation, is available from Marcel Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, 3 vols., Sources Chr¦tiennes 320, 329, and 336 (Paris: Cerf, 1985 – 1986). Fraenkel, Testimonia, 20 n. 47. According to Fraenkel, the oration is taken from the Aldine edition of 1516 and not the more recent translation by Peter Mosellanus. There is no VD16 reference to this work, though Fraenkel claims that two copies are held in the Zwickau library, and one copy at the University of Lund, without lecture notes. According to Way, however, the only existing copy which remains is held at the Ratsbibliothek, Zwickau. She states that there were two copies in Munich but these were destroyed during the Second World War (150). The Greek and Latin copy reproduced by Beneszewicz, with lecture notes, is taken from a volume in the Vatican Library (see Melanchthoniana, 64 – 88 and 89 – 108). See VD16 G3092; the sermons can be found in PG 63, 695; §4684. Fraenkel, Testimonia, 20. Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum, 20. This work is not listed in the VD16. Paphnutius was a celebrated bishop who attended the Council of Nicaea. He had suffered mutilation (of the left leg and removal of the right eye) and had been sent to the mines during the persecution of Emperor Maximian. He had also been a proponent of clerical marriage. See Beneszewicz, Melanchthoniana, 127. “Can we trace continuity between the young Reformer Melanchthon who attacks speculation about the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ and the somewhat older Melanchthon who strongly defended the Patristic doctrine about Christ and God, or is it clearly that Melanchthon changed his mind and later did himself what he had attacked with youthful zeal?” Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic Thought, 1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Patristic Lectures and Knowledge of Cappadocian Material

85

reflection concerning the deeper mysteries of the person of Christ and the Trinity. Granted, Meijering is right to note a change in the subsequent editions of the Loci, which were more explicit in their patristic references concerning these questions. The change, however, is an indication of the shift in popular theological conversation. The change does not represent an abandonment of the earlier convictions of an idealistic young man. Rather, Melanchthon’s addition of more complex Christological and Trinitarian reflection reveals that he was putting into a popular text (e. g., the Loci of 1543) the work he had already studied and commented upon (as early as 1519), yet reserved for the lecture hall. It is one thing to discuss such matters within the confines of a university with students who must demonstrate a correct understanding before advancing. Once, however, such subtle and complex questions become popularized they are easily distorted. During the heated Christological and Trinitarian controversies (as well as those concerning the Eucharist), Melanchthon is always concerned with the effect such debate will have on the simple piety of the unlearned or semilearned. Yet, he is forced to respond — Servetus and others had burst the dam open. Melanchthon had to offer a learned but concise orthodox response. In this, he actually echoes the famous concern of Gregory of Nyssa about the dangers of such matters being discussed so blithely.55 And so, we may counter Meijering’s criticism on two accounts. First, the marked increase in patristic reference under the loci concerning God, Christ, the Trinity, and Christian Freedom are not new concerns for Melanchthon, as we have seen. Rather, he added to later general theological texts the work he had already done as a young professor for his students. Thus, the inclusion of patristic sources in later editions of the Loci communes does not represent a scramble to find supplementary material once the strength of one’s own biblical convictions have been shaken. From the beginning, Melanchthon demonstrated that the Fathers were used to help guide our reading of the most important themes of Scripture. Second, these critics misinterpret Melanchthon’s understanding of both “idle speculation” and the nature of the Loci communes. One might also add that they misunderstand the context of subsequent addition to the Loci based on the way the theological conversation shifted, quite beyond 55 (De deitate filii et spiritus sancti, PG 46, 557; CPG §3192): “Everywhere, in the public squares, at crossroads, on the streets and lanes, people used to stop you and discourse at random about the Trinity. If you asked something of a moneychanger, he would begin discussing the question of the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you questioned a baker about the price of bread, he would answer that the Father is greater and the Son is subordinate of Him. If you went to take a bath, the Anomoean bath attendant would tell you that in his opinion the Son simply comes from nothing. Must we say these people were out of their heads? At any rate heresy had upset their minds.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

86

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

Melanchthon’s desire and control. In 1521, Melanchthon wrote the Loci as condensed guide to the main topics of Scripture; it is Melanchthon’s corrective to the Scholastics who had engaged in the “idle speculation” upon the mysteries of the Trinity, the mode of Incarnation, or active and passive creation. In 1521, these questions were not subject to controversy, did not press upon any essential doctrine of the faith, and thus could be cut away from a general introductory theological text. Clearly, however, his opinion was not the same in so far as it concerned what could and should be covered in a theological lecture for more advanced students, as witnessed by use of patristic material (such as the Theological Orations) which indeed touch (though lightly) on such things. By the 1540s, however, these previously tangential topic for a general theological text were directly under attack by the Radical Reformers. By calling the traditional doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity into question, the Radicals threatened the Church’s proclamation of what God has done for us (i. e., could obscure the benefits of Christ). Therefore, Melanchthon was compelled as a responsible pedagogue (quite indifferent to his own lack of pleasure at the form the theological discourse was now taking) to include such material in subsequent editions of the Loci communes – a shift he could not have anticipated twenty years earlier. Thus, however one evaluates what Melanchthon said on such topics, his demonstrable terseness and desire to tie everything back to the promises of God in Christ (especially concerning the Incarnation and Free Will) demonstrate not a change but a persistent focus to make Christ and his benefits known. The insertion of patristic sources on these controversial questions shows that, while new to the nature of Loci communes, these were well-known arguments to Melanchthon the philologist and theologian.

6.

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

6.1

De Ecclesia et De Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539

While Melanchthon had an early hand in making translations of Greek patristic sources, his primary contribution to patristic studies of the time was the way in which he evaluated certain authors from the early Church and incorporated them into his works promoting the Evangelical-Lutheran position. De Ecclesia et de Autoritate Verbi Dei (originally entitled De ecclesiae autoritate et de veterum scriptis libellus) offers a sophisticated articulation of the role of tradition as an authority in the Church.56 Therein, Melanchthon immediately establishes that it is the Word of God alone that has authority and which conveys authority to the 56 See CR 23, 595 – 642; CR 15, 734 – 82; and MSA 1, 323 – 86.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

87

Church. Councils and venerable patristic authors have no authority on their own; their authority is received in direct proportion to how much they reflect the light of the pure proclamation of the Gospel. Melanchthon was, therefore, very critical not only of the pontifical claims to universal primacy but had some terse criticisms of prominent patristic authors.57 Fraenkel has correctly noted that Melanchthon’s target were those (such as Georg Witzel) who used patristic authors to reform the Church along ecclesiastical, liturgical, and moral lines while leaving matters of doctrine untouched in the name of concord.58 This criticism, however, should not lead us to dismiss the authoritative role Melanchthon attaches to patristic authors and ecclesiastical councils. Melanchthon seeks to correct an over-estimation of post-apostolic authorities; he does not deny post-apostolic authority per se. In particular, we see that Melanchthon emphasized those patristic authors who have preserved and handed over the Apostolic faith purely.59 He offers his reader a patrology. He guides the reader to the things that are most useful in a Father’s work and flagging certain ideas that are either false or unguarded statements to which others have attributed far more authority than the patristic author ever intended. Among such trustworthy authors — but who are nonetheless subject to sharp criticism — are Basil and Gregory Nazianzen.60

6.1.1 Criticisms of the Cappadocians Concerning Basil, Melanchthon writes that there is much useful testimony in his works, namely concerning the Trinity and the nature of penance and reconciliation. Most importantly, Basil correctly understood that our justification before God occurred on account of the mercy and merits of Christ alone with no 57 58 59 60

De Ecclesia et de Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 599 and 603). Fraenkel, Testimonia, 28 – 29. In Melanchthon’s words, see De Ecclesia, 605 – 06. De Ecclesia, 599 – 600; see also the “regula doctrinae” (604). Gregory Thaumaturgos is praised repeatedly for defending the apostolic faith in the Trinity against Paul of Samosata, and no direct criticisms of him are offered (see De Ecclesia, 596 and 604). The criticisms of Basil and Nazianzen — concerning monasticism and the invocation of the saints — are not the only criticism of the Cappadocians Melanchthon offers. He is critical of Basil’s apparent denial of simul iustus et peccator; this criticism will be discussed in a subsequent chapter dealing with Melanchthon’s use of the Cappadocians against certain Roman Catholic arguments. Melanchthon is also critical of Basil’s denial of astrology — a science dear to Melanchthon. See Melanchthon’s introduction to Johannes Schöner, De iudiciis nativitatum libri tres. Nuremberg, Johann vom Berg und Ulrich Neuber, 1545 (MBW 3978/CR 5, 817 – 24. See Basil’s comments, see Homilae in hexaemeron, PG 29, 132D; CPG §2835. For Melanchthon’s affirmation of astrology as the means for discerning God’s providential care for and order of the universe, see Kusukawa, Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 124 – 60.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

88

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

consideration of any prior or subsequent virtue of ours.61 Yet, Basil’s legacy is not entirely without blemish. Some praise Basil as the father of monasticism and in doing so seek to perpetuate any number of false ideas concerning the alleged superiority of the monastic life over those who pursue secular vocations. Melanchthon defends Basil, saying that certainly many of the monastic rules attributed to Basil were added many years after his death.62 According to Melanchthon, these forgeries include an exaggerated praise of celibacy, vain rituals, and that one can merit satisfaction for sins. Those who perpetuate these ideas merely out of a professed love for antiquity are simply insane.63 Interestingly, Melanchthon moderated his criticism of Basil. Melanchthon’s main concern was to regain the authority of Basil for his own cause against his opponents. By evaluating (correctly) many of the monastic regulations attributed to Basil as spurious as well as by emphasizing that Basil clearly affirmed the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, Melanchthon retained Basil as worthy model for subsequent theologians.64 61 De Ecclesia, 616. 62 Melanchthon offers a similar criticism of Basil’s monasticism in other works; see De Dignitate Studii Theologici, 1537 (CR 11, 326); Confessio Augustana Variata, 1540 (MSA 6/1, 67); Loci 1543 (CR 21, 837 – 38 and MSA 2, 484); Confessio Saxonica, 1551 (MSA 6, 152); Oration on Nazianzen, 1558 (CR 11, 683); and the Postilla Melanchthonis, n.d. (CR 24, 358). For but one example, in the Loci communes of 1543 Melanchthon says that while Basil and others held to the foundation of faith, they were sometimes wrong and promoted false opinions on human ceremonies (i. e., doctrines not essential to the Gospel) and as a result others were misled (CR 21, 836; Preus, 134). While there is a clear criticism of Basil, it is moderated by an affirmation that the patristic testimony is not infallible. Further, the real error lies with those who take a misguided statement (such as Basil’s praise of monastic life) and turn it into an article of faith (i. e., that through monastic life one can receive remission of sins). 63 De Ecclesia, 617. 64 One could speculate that had Melanchthon been able to read the Rules as we know them today — analyzed with the tools of literary criticism and outside the polemical rhetoric concerning monasticism inflamed by all sides of the Reformation — he would found much within them commendable: for instance, that Basil intended the Rules not just for enthusiastic monks but for the average lay person. More importantly, he would have praised Basil’s affirmation on the centrality of Scripture, as Letter 22 was added to the Rules, see Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 193. Speculation aside, Melanchthon’s critical evaluation of the Rules attributed to Basil is consonant with modern scholarship. In the words of Rousseau, “The ‘rules’ that have survived, the Long Rules and the Short Rules, together with the Moralia, have to be regarded as the result of a long process, reaching well beyond Basil’s own lifetime. They cannot be taken as symptomatic of some ordered and completed monastic system, presided over by the bishop himself” (192). For an indication of the vast body of work in praise of monasticism written by and attributed to Basil, see the following: the Asceticon magnum sive Questiones, PG 31, 901 – 1305; CPG §2875. The Asceticon parvum (the Latin translation of Rufinus), PL 103, 483 – 554; CPG §2876. The Regulae Morales, PG 31, 691 – 869; CPG §2877. Futher, the De vita monastica (Sermo 15) is spurious, CPG §2893 and the Constitutiones asceticae are doubtful, PG 31, 1321 – 1428; CPG §2895.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

89

Specific criticism of Basil comes in the immediately following section on Gregory Nazianzen. Melanchthon writes that Gregory was most concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity. “Other doctrines,” Melanchthon says, Gregory “only touched upon lightly.”65 This is a surprising statement but considering that the Theological Orations were the best-known doctrinal work by Gregory, the evaluation is understandable.66 Melanchthon is also aware of Gregory’s oration on St. Cyprian. He is very critical of the oration, as Melanchthon’s opponents cited the work to justify the invocation of saints and the Virgin Mary.67 Melanchthon first tries to defend Gregory, suggesting that the oration was likely not written by him at all. Even if Gregory had composed the work, Melanchthon continues, “a pious error cannot be set against the word of God.”68 Further, some of Melanchthon’s opponents cited another example from both Basil and Gregory to support the invocation of saints, such as when they exclaimed “O Athanasius! Pray for us.”69 First, Melanchthon says that the phrase can be excused as a rhetorical device. Second, even if they had meant to invoke the prayers of Athanasius for the Church, this invocation was uttered at a time before the cult of saints had crept into the Church.70 Melanchthon concludes that we should preserve and promote the memory of the saints as models for our own lives. Further, we invoke the saints not for our particular, selfish worries, but only in so far as they — as members of the Church Triumphant — pray for the well65 De Ecclesia, 617. 66 This is, however, not the first such criticism. In a letter to Georg Spalatin, ca. 20 November 1522 in which he evaluates the recently purchased manuscripts from the Lobkowitz-Hassenstein library, Melanchthon complains how little Basil and Nazianzen refer to the “apostolic majesty” (MBW 247 [T1, 510]/CR 1, 547). Without knowing exactly which texts Melanchthon is referring to, one should be cautious in attributing too much to this criticism. 67 Oration 24, delivered to the congregation at Constantinople, 2 October 379. In the estimation of John McGuckin, “The panegyric for Cyprian, Oration 24, is something of a disaster. He clearly has very little idea who the saint was . . . and cobbled something together the best he could. The resultant festival oration is a gaudy cocktail that confusedly mingles elements of Cyprian of Carthage with Cyprian of Antioch. The sober North African confessor is transmuted into the wondrous magician of Antioch. . . . Gregory has no awareness of anything Cyprian of Carthage actually wrote” (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 251 and 252). Its possible that Melanchthon knows this oration from the Greek collection published in 1516 by the Aldine Press (Orationes lectissimae XVI), owned by the Wittenberg library (Kusukawa number 28). If not, he likely knew of the oration as early as 1519, when it was translated by Oecolampadius (see VD16 G3048, G3052 and G3053). The oration, however, is not included in any of the editions from 1512, 1519, or 1522. It first appears in a collection of Gregory’s works in 1531 as part of the translations made by Pirkheimer, published by the Froben press (VD16 G3082). See also Way, Catalogus, 53. 68 De Ecclesia, 617. 69 This is most likely a reference to Gregory’s Oration 21, In laudem magni Athanasii. This oration was translated by Pirkheimer and it appears that it was not printed until 1531 (G3082); see Way, Catalogus, 152. 70 De Ecclesia, 617.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

90

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

being of the whole Church.71 Therefore, their exclamation was entirely appropriate. These criticisms allow for some observations. First, they point to Melanchthon’s understanding of tradition and history. Criticisms of the patristic testimony in general and the Cappadocians in particular indicate a mature and balanced approach to the tradition. As discussed earlier, Melanchthon is opposed to historicism; he rejects the idea that the fact that something once existed as an accepted (or at least tolerated) practice of the Church justifies its continued presence. According to Fraenkel: Under [Melanchthon’s] hands, criticism easily turned into apology. This is perhaps not too difficult to understand if we remember that for him, criticism only scrapes away the impurities that mar the integral faith and it presupposes the conviction that under the dross lies the whole and pure teaching of the Church.72

Melanchthon is willing (using Paul’s admonitions in Gal 1:8 – 9 and 1 Cor 3:11) to subject everything to the Gospel, the proclamation of the Christus pro nobis. No authority is exempt from the judgment of Christ and the Gospel’s denial of any self-righteousness. Second, this indicates Melanchthon’s appreciation for and use of the Fathers themselves. The criticisms of patristic authorities, however, do not invalidate their authority. Especially with such noteworthy figures such as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Augustine, such criticism is actually meant to polish their image further.73 It is also clear that the apologetic criticisms of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen are as much directed to retrieving these authorities from his opponents. In the end, Melanchthon sees that the problem is not so much Basil or Gregory Nazianzen but the way in which their testimony or unguarded statements are twisted to support false ideas; namely, a distorted view of monasticism and a veneration of saints that had become idolatrous. 71 De Ecclesia, 617. This attitude is consistent with Article Twenty-One of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (BSLK, 317 – 18; BC, 238 and 241). See also Siegfried Gödl, Melanchthons Stellung zur Heiligenanrufung: Anrufung Gottes und Anrufung der Heiligen. Dissertationen der Unversität Graz 39 (Vienna, 1977), esp. 64 – 69, 124 – 31, and 154 – 67. The same simultaneous criticism of the cult of saints and a defense of Basil is repeated in the Responsio ad Scriptum Cleri, 1543 (MSA 6, 394 – 95), Basil is cited against the invocation of the saints, quoted in Greek. 72 Fraenkel, Testimonia, 295. 73 Melanchthon is not unique in having a critical attitude toward the patristic tradition. In the words of Scott Hendrix, the Reformers “de-parentified” the Fathers; see Scott H. Hendrix, “Deparentifying the Fathers,” Auctoritas Patrum: Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter in 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1993), 54 – 68. Hendrix borrows the term from family therapy, where to deparentify someone is “to refuse any longer to attribute an inappropriate authority to that person and to assume more responsibility for oneself” (57). He also counters the charge that the Rerformers’ use of the Fathers was not opportunistic and was in fact consistent with the previous generations variously appropriated use of patristic sources.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

6.2

91

De Basilio Episcopo, 1545

In 1545, Melanchthon composed an oration on Basil. The oration was delivered by Johann Turstenius, dean of the arts faculty from 1544 – 45.74 The oration begins with a lofty affirmation of learning and the mandate of the universities: to study, adhere to, and maintain the pure doctrine of the Church. Those who gather together for this purpose enjoy the promise of Christ to be within their midst. The introduction then ends with a prayer to Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit.75 One should note, in passing, that on the commemoration of Basil’s feast day in 1558, Jacob Lechner (dean of the arts faculty) posted a notice about the saint that was essentially an abridgement of this first oration, so that text will not be discussed further.76 Melanchthon says that, in order to encourage the students toward their divine mandate, he will tell them the story of St. Basil; for there are few examples in the history of the Church who match his erudition. Whereas in art, one looks for symmetry and elegance to judge what is beautiful, so we in the Church search for that which is oldest to determine the truth. Yet, we do not search for the ancient faith for its own sake, for the test of enduring truth is that which not only expresses the faith of the past but which invigorates our current inquiries. We have the testimony of so many Fathers who, to the best of their ability, preserved and articulated the ancient faith of the Church. Our task is to examine the testimony of the past, and lift up that which is most enduring and useful for the Church’s proclamation.77 He is quick to clarify, however, that we do not judge the testimony of the Church based upon our own criteria. When human judgment reigns, heresy ensues, as the recent Christological controversies illustrate. Rather, we have the pure, revealed doctrine of divine things directly from God. These doctrines (e. g., the Triune nature of God, the Incarnation, the free and unmerited gift of grace) must be taught clearly and unadulterated. Further, these doctrines are sufficient to counter the heresies of others.78 The account of Basil’s life unfolds in the formal manner of a classical oration. Melanchthon begins with an account of Basil’s birthplace, for one’s native land 74 CR 11, 675 – 84. According to Kusukawa, “Through his office as teacher, rector, or dean, Melanchthon composed a vast number of orations which were often delivered by others, as was customary at the time”; Orations on Philosophy and Education, xiii. See also H. Koehn, “Philipp Meanchthons Reden: Verzeichnis der im 16. Jahrhundert erschienenen Drucke,” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 25 (1984): 1289 – 92, esp. 1349. The oration was printed in Wittenberg twice that same year. 75 De Basilio, 675. 76 Academicis, 3 February 1558 (CR 9, 441 – 443). These academicis (addressed “to the students”) were notices on the Wittenberg university “bulletin board.” 77 De Basilio, 676. 78 De Basilio, 677.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

92

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

places an indelible mark upon one’s character. While he does not refer to Cappadocia, he says that Basil was born in “a most verdant and beautiful part of Asia.” He then allows himself a minor digression to lament that this part of Asia, so beautiful in landscape and of so virtuous a people, is now under the despotic rule of the Turks. Despite its current situation, however, Cappadocia nurtured some of the most learned and devout defenders of the faith. Melanchthon recounts that Basil, along with his brothers Peter and Gregory, became bishops. Basil’s family has a close association with the family of Gregory Nazianzen (“both father and son”). Even before the families of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, this land was blessed with Gregory Thaumaturgus. This stalwart cohort, Melanchthon argues, preserved the tranquility of the Church in this area by defending the faith against heresies of Paul of Samosata and Arius. Melanchthon also gives particular attention to the fact that Basil’s father was a Christian and a man of letters. His education provided him with the ability to think clearly and speak eloquently. For his efforts, he was rewarded with three sons who became bishops. Melanchthon uses this fact to two ends. First, he wishes to underline his emphasis on the necessary role of education in the Church, a topic typical for the occasion of the promotion of masters of arts. Second, he uses the model of Basil’s parents to exhort all parents to instruct their children in the Christian faith, for, in doing so, who knows how great their reward might be?79 Melanchthon recounts that, after receiving his basic education at home, Basil furthered his education in Caesarea and then Athens. There he was introduced to the variety of cultures found in a great cosmopolitan city and studied rhetoric and philosophy. While learning these arts, Basil did not waver from the faith he had been taught as an infant. At this point, Melanchthon reiterates the importance of the apostolic testimony of Gregory Thaumaturgus, the very faith with which Basil had been raised as an infant. Melanchthon also affirms the importance of other men of great learning, such as Irenaeus, who established schools in the Church for the propagation of faith. Such zeal for piety and learning are contrasted with the situation in Melanchthon’s own day.80 Melanchthon notes that after Basil finished his education, he returned to Caesarea to serve the Church under Bishop Eusebius as a teacher and lector. Yet, he soon fell out of favor with the bishop as the Arians became more influential. As a result, Basil resigned his service and, in the interest of peace, retreated to a monastery in Pontus. Melanchthon assures his listeners, however, that Basil’s

79 De Basilio, 677. On the piety of Basil’s parents and how their influence helped lead three sons to become bishops, see De Basilio, 678. 80 De Basilio, 678 – 79. Melanchthon makes an interesting reference therein to centaurs. In classical literature, Centaurs, as the union of man and beast, represent the struggle between civilization and barbarism.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

93

resignation was not out of cowardice nor was he idle.81 Basil used his time in retreat to read, study, and meditate on the true faith and used these talents to defeat the Arians (no mention is made of Origen or the Philocalia). Melanchthon uses the reference to Basil’s monastic retreat at Pontus to ensure that the listener does not confuse Basil’s time as a monk with the laziness and self-righteousness of monks they were used to encountering. Basil’s monastery was a true monastery : a place of learning, where the justification by grace through faith was taught, where the senses were disciplined through modesty and humility.82 What wise and humble man would leave such blessed tranquility and earnest devotion to learning? But Basil left his retreat and private devotion in order to make a public defense of the divine doctrine that was being daily assaulted by the Arians.83 Melanchthon continues by recounting Basil’s confrontation with the Emperor Valens. One discerns that his main source for the story was Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 43 by choosing to highlight the confrontation between Basil and the Emperor during the liturgy.84 Yet, the account here is made more interesting by what Melanchthon chooses to add. He notes that after Basil became bishop, Valens made his way to Caesarea and ordered Basil to conform to the Arian faith. When Basil refused, the Emperor decided to visit Basil personally. Yet, in Melanchthon’s version, the Emperor is not there to worship and put soft pressure on Basil through the presence of the imperial retinue (as in Oration 43) but instead is there to arrest Basil. Valens enters the temple with armed guards. When they approach the place where Basil is seated, Valens is suddenly overcome with dizziness and he seized the hand of a nearby deacon to steady himself. The fallen Emperor now beset with tremors, was carried out in a frenzy by his servants.85 Melanchthon then offers a commentary on the event with a reference not found in the other historical sources by comparing the swooning of the Emperor before Basil to the expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple in Jerusalem.86 Melanchthon contrasts Valens’s propensity towards such acts of rage with Basil’s peace and moderation. In fact, many such kings and heretics have raged against the true faith, but the patient persistence of men such as St. Basil won the 81 82 83 84

De Basilio, 679 – 80. He also informs us of his source for this information, Eusebius; De Basilio, 680. De Basilio, 680. Oration 43 was not included in the orations translated by Rufinus, see Way, Catalogus, 129. The first printed translation appeared between 1450 and 1455, by George Trebizond (136). According to Way, the first translation in a German edition was made by Pirkheimer in 1531. She notes, however, that it “could be found separately in many editions of the work of Basil,” with no further reference (153). Therefore, it is not immediately apparent when and from what source Melanchthon read the oration apart from the accounts in the church histories. 85 De Basilio, 681. 86 See 2 Macc. 3:21 – 28.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

94

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

day. By God’s grace, the imperial throne was soon occupied by Theodosius and the true faith was allowed to blossom and grow. Basil’s faith, as well as his deeds and works, should be kept alive if the Church is to continue to flourish.87 He then concludes with a list of what these virtues are: he propagated true formulations of faith concerning the Son and Holy Spirit — formulations that were passed down from Gregory Thaumaturgus and accepted from the disciples of the first Apostles; his work on penance refuted the Cathars; he articulated the true Gospel that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ alone (and he quotes an excerpt from Basil’s homily on humility); and he accomplished all of this with eloquence, moderation, and prudence. As for those who would criticize Basil for his monasticism, Melanchthon responds that a greater part of the monastic Rules attributed to Basil have been corrupted over time. Therefore, any guilt for the current state of monasticism should not be attributed to Basil. Yet, Melanchthon continues, even if such a great teacher had believed that the monastic life earned merit toward salvation, we would have to deny him on this question and follow the Apostles.88

6.3

Postilla, On Basil, 1555/154989

In 1595, Christoph Pezel published a collection of comments by Melanchthon on the Sunday liturgical texts. Delivered in the 1540s and 1550s in Latin on early Sunday morning especially for the benefit of foreign students, the Pezel’s notes form a pastiche of comments. This particular postil (a homiletic exposition of the appointed liturgical text) was probably delivered on the Sunday immediately following the Feast of the Purification, between 1549 and 1559 (in 1555, February 3 fell on a Sunday).90 The postil represents Melanchthon’s most mature reflection on Basil and, as we will soon see, it contained details concerning Basil 87 De Basilio, 682. 88 De Basilio, 684. For the Lutheran criticisms of monasticism and their response to the defense of monastic life made in the Confutation, see Article 27 of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession (BSLK, 377 – 96; BC, 277 – 89). 89 The date of this postil is not certain. There are two differently dated student notes made for this postil, one from 1549 in Jena (Ms. Bos q 24a, 2 Zlg. F. 43r) and one from 1555 as part of the Vatican’s Bibliotheca Palatina (Rom BAV, Cod. Pal. Lat. 1832, f. 225r). The transcription we now have in CR 24, 353 – 64 may or may not reflect Pezel’s sources. I am grateful to Prof. Timothy Wengert for providing the archival references. See Wengert, “The Biblical Commentaries of Philip Melanchthon,” Melanchthon and the Commentary, 106 – 148. 90 The Feast of the Purification (a.k.a. the Candlemas) is now more commonly known as the Feast of the Presentation, and celebrated February 2. The day commemorates both Mary’s purification after childbirth (see Leviticus 12: 2 – 8) and the presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2: 22 – 24), in which the sacrifice is offered for the first born child (Exodus 13: 2, 12 – 13; Numbers 18: 15 – 16).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

95

that are not included in his oration on Basil. Here, Melanchthon conflates St. Blasius with St. Basil, saying that “Blasius” is a barbarian corruption of the name “Basilius” and decries the ignorance that allowed such an error to occur.91 Why is Basil discussed at the Feast of the Purification? It has to do with the proximity of the Feast (February 2) and the commemoration of St. Basil in Saxony (February 3). In two letters written by Melanchthon, dated February 3, he mentions that the Feast of St. Basil was commemorated on that date.92 This is also the traditional date for the commemoration of St. Blaise, who, according to legend, was a martyred bishop of the early fourth century and who is coincidentally a fellow Cappadocian (the part that is today Armenia).93 Without further study of the liturgical calendar of Saxony, it is not possible to say if the conflation of Blasius with Basilius was in fact Melanchthon’s error or if it was a common opinion of the time, one aided by the proximity of the saints’ feast days and legends surrounding them. The postil is remarkable for other reasons. First, Melanchthon does not discuss the appointed text for the day, but rather concentrates on the saints appointed for the day or whose feast day was commemorated around the date of the postil: Polycarp and Basil.94 Second, the postil is rich not only in information about Basil not included in the oration but is also rich in historical and literary references. For instance, he notes that Cappadocia is now called Mazeka, the capital of which is Caesarea. He also notes that the region next to Cappadocia is Cilicia, formerly called “Henetus.” Melanchthon speculates that the great majority of Gauls and Celts are descendants of these people.95 He also gives us the names not only of Basil’s brothers but also of his mother, Emmelia. He is also more explicit in naming his sources for biographical information on Basil, namely Oration 43 and Basil’s letters. Finally, the postil has quite a few aphorisms from ancient authors, such as Aeschylus, Thales, Plato, Cicero, Thucydides,

91 CR 24, 353 – 54: “Estne idem nomen Basilii et Blasii? Blasius est corruptum nomen. Nam barbaries multa corrumpit, ut non dicam omnia. . . . Quando invalescit barbaries, omnia corrumpuntur in artibus et legibus. . . . Sunt fatui malitiosi, quales multos expertus est Basilius.” 92 See the Letter to Veit Dietrich, 3 February 1547 (MBW 4578/CR 6, 583). Melanchthon writes that he hopes to hear from Dietrich of the progress of Charles V’s campaign along the Rhine. From the same day, we have a Letter to Johannes Lindemann, 3 February 1547 (MBW 4579/ CR 6, 380), which also marks the day as one on which St. Basil is commemorated. 93 There is a significant section of the Golden Legend dedicated to him (151 – 53). There is also a Greek legend about him, see PG 116, 817 – 30. St. Blaise is one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers. His cult was very popular in Germany. Other feast days for St. Blaise are February 11 (Greek calendar) and February 15. 94 Most of the postil is dedicated to Basil, though it begins with a brief discussion of Polycarp, whose feast day is January 26 (Postilla, 24, 351 – 53). 95 Postilla, CR 24, 354.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

96

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

Euripides, and Homer. For Greek authors, he cites them in Greek, followed by a Latin translation. Since I have already recorded the oration on St. Basil in detail, I will offer here only those points that are most significant in the postil. Melanchthon begins his account of Basil’s life by mentioning his family : his father was of noble birth, his mother’s name was Emmelia, that Basil had three brothers, two of whom became bishops. He also notes that Gregory of Nyssa wrote a useful book, De anima.96 He notes again the importance of Gregory Thuamaturgus’s missionary work in Cappadocia, in which he preached the true apostolic faith, and that it was this very faith that Basil learned from his nurses.97 In giving an account of Basil’s education, he quotes from Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 43.98 Melanchthon repeatedly emphasized that Basil mastered not only Christian doctrine but also philosophy and eloquence. He also praises Basil and Gregory (as well as Irenaeus) as Christians who were not afraid to travel great distances to improve their education and then subsequently take their gifts of learning throughout the world.99 This theme was dear to Melanchthon, as he also mentions the travels that Basil and Nazianzen endured in letters of recommendation for his own students.100 Basil’s return to Caesarea and subsequent election as bishop is highlighted. Melanchthon repeats the story of Basil’s conflict with Valens, especially how the emperor was overcome when his men tried to arrest Basil in the temple. He adds a story of Valens ordering eighty orthodox priests to be thrown to the alligators as punishment for not embracing the Arian faith. Throughout the course of his struggles, Melanchthon highlights Basil’s steadfast faith and moderation.101 Finally, Basil’s many contributions to Christian doctrine are highlighted. 96 Postilla, 24, 355. He probably has in mind the Opificio homines by Nemesius of Emesa, which Melanchthon has access to as early as 1512. 97 Postilla, 24, 357. 98 Postilla, 24, 356. 99 Postilla, 24, 356. 100 See the Letter of Recommendation for Johannes Ferinarius, Wittenberg, 23 March 1560 (MBW 9268/CR 9, 1071 – 72. Basil and Nazianzen are likewise praised in the Letter of Recommendation for Christoph Camerarius, 13 February 1552 (MBW 6347/CR 7, 943). Finally, Melanchthon even quotes Gregory Nazianzen’s critical reminiscence of the emperor Julian during their student days together in Athens as an exhortation for students to have proper discipline and moderation; see the Letter to the Reader, in Causae cur scholae philosophicae praefecti in Academia Rostochiana in disciplina resarcienda elaborarint . . . Wittenberg, 25 December 1555 (MBW 7670/CR 8, 628 – 632). 101 Postilla, 24, 359 – 60. Melanchthon offers an extended discussion of how Basil is a model of Christ’s exhortation to the departing disciples, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). The Arians, encouraged by the emperor, wreacked havoc, but through it all Basil fought with quiet dignity for the peace of the Church (362 – 63).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

97

First, Basil is praised for retaining the ancient consensus of the Church and driving away “the wolves.”102 He extols the quality of Basil’s commentary on Genesis (a work of “great erudition and eloquence”) as well as the influence this text had on Ambrose.103 He notes that Basil is often called the Father of Monasticism, but offers another prolonged explanation that Basil’s monasteries were really schools of piety and education which had little in common with the monasteries of the sixteenth century.104 Basil defended the faith of the Nicene Creed. In particular, he defended the correct understanding of the technical theological terms of logos, homoousios, and hypostasis. Thus, the Arians and the Samosatians are defeated. His work in the Hexaemeron also defeats the Manichees, by showing that God is not the author of evil. By affirming that even the lapsed may be redeemed again, Basil also defeats the Novatianists. Finally, Basil taught that our justification before God occurs by grace through faith and only through the merits of Christ, and Basil cites again Basil’s homily on humility.105 Neither could the listener then nor can the reader today entertain any doubt of the high esteem in which Melanchthon held St. Basil as both a theologian in his own right and an enduring model for future educators of the Church.

6.4

De Gregorio Nazianzeno, 1558106

This academic oration was delivered on 10 February 1558 by Jacob Lechner, dean of the arts faculty, at the promotion for the new masters of arts. Melanchthon begins by affirming that he will use the academic setting of the oration to give an account of Gregory Nazianzen. The memory of such notable figures from Christian antiquity should always be extolled to the youth so that they may not only be edified by their pious doctrine but also see that the Church endures even in the most difficult times.107 Melanchthon notes that Gregory was born to Christian parents; Gregory the elder (who was a bishop), and his mother were renowned for their piety and prudence. He also adds than Gregory himself wrote of their happy marriage. 102 Postilla, 24, 360: “Adversarios vero doctrinae incorruptae tanta gravitate refutavit, ut et Ecclesiae consensum retineret, et lupos illos brevi ab Ecclesia illa depelleret.” 103 Postilla, 24, 357. 104 Postilla, 24, 358. Basil’s schools are credited with stemming the tide of Arianism (359). Consequently, it is worth mentioning here that Melanchthon — quite in harmony with the tradition — sees the threat of Islam as simply the renewed threat of Arianism, “Imo Mahometismus natus est ex Arianismo. Constantinopolis hodie est cloaca Arii” (363 – 64). 105 For all the above, see Postilla, 363 – 64. 106 De Gregorio Nazianzeno, 1558 (CR 12, 277 – 85). The oration was published in Wittenberg that same year; see Koehn, “Melanchthons Reden,” 1385 – 6. 107 De Gregorio Nazianzeno, 278.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

98

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

These learned and pious parents taught their son the teaching of the prophets and apostles, the history of the Church, and the deeds of the saints in the most serious controversies. In order to further his education, Gregory’s parents sent him to Alexandria, where he could master eloquence and philosophy. He speculates that the parents may have also been prompted to send their son to Alexandria as Athanasius has recently been restored there after eight years of exile in Trier.108 Yet, still greater opportunities called. Gregory decided to travel to Athens, where he would learn from the best teachers of eloquence. It was there that he studied and roomed with Basil. Melanchthon notes (to his students) that Athens was a vile place, full of corrupt morals, petulant youths, and practitioners of the magic arts. Gregory and Basil, so infused with the discipline of the true God by their parents, avoided such temptations. Melanchthon then contrasts the steadfastness of the two Cappadocians with their fellow student, the future emperor Julian, and he cites Gregory’s famous criticisms of Julian’s physique as a sign of his moral corruption.109 Melanchthon offers a sympathetic account of Gregory’s return home, his ordination to the priesthood by his father, and his subsequent flight from pastoral duties. Melanchthon remarks that Gregory was a man who loved peace. Deeply troubled by the theological controversies threatening to topple the Church, Gregory sought out the fellowship of his friend Basil, who had likewise taken retreat from his work in Caesarea. Through Melanchthon’s pen, Gregory’s personal flaw is turned into a commendable virtue. Their retreat was not prompted by cowardice but — as Melanchthon previously highlighted in his oration on Basil — a commitment to study so that the great heresies of Arianism and Manicheism could be defeated, not unlike the situation of the new masters of arts in Wittenberg. They left their retreat only when the Church has more pressing need of them: Basil to take up the bishopric of Caesarea and Gregory to return to aid his aged father in the administration of the diocese of Nazianzus.110 Gregory’s opportunity to put his study of the ancient and apostolic faith into practice came when he was called to serve as bishop of the orthodox community in Constantinople. Because the Arians controlled all of the churches, Gregory’s flock met in a private house. Interestingly, this is all Melanchthon reports about 108 See De Gregorio, 278 – 79. Neither Gregory the Elder’s past membership as a Hypsistarian nor the fact that he was at first disowned for taking a Christian wife are mentioned. 109 De Gregorio, 279 – 80. 110 De Gregorio, 280. Again, particular details are missing, such as the dates for these events (viz., Gregory’s return to Nazianzen in 358 or his ordination in 361). These details, however, were either unknown or unimportant in the context of an oration. As with the oration on Basil, one omitted but well-known fact from the histories (e. g., Socrates Historia ecclesiastica, chapter 26 and Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, chapter 17) is the identification of the exact content of their study : Origen’s works. For more on Gregory’s sensitive personality and weak constitution, see McGuckin, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, 85 – 104.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

99

Gregory’s activities against the Arians. He does not mention the Theological Orations delivered by Gregory at that time, though their significance was clearly not lost to Melanchthon. Instead, he focuses again on Gregory’s humility and love of peace. Once Theodosius had restored the orthodox faith, Gregory was recognized as the episcopal leader of the capital. Yet, such acclaim was short lived. Melanchthon reports that Maximus the Cynic had been elevated to the office of lector and priest by Gregory. This man, ignoring divine and human laws, created a faction within the congregation, setting himself up against Gregory with the support of soldiers sent from Alexandria.111 Melanchthon then pauses his account, to report on the decrees of the Council of Constantinople, which — under Gregory’s leadership — affirmed the Nicene Creed and expounded it further by articulating that both the Logos and the Holy Spirit are of one hypostasis with the Father.112 Only afterwards did the Alexandrian “faction” make their move to have Gregory removed. For his part, Gregory responded with “great calmness,” volunteering to step down lest he be — like Jonah — the cause of the current storm of their rage. Gregory retired to the simplicity of Nazianzus (his former diocese now under the care of Eulalius), while — Melanchthon notes — Maximus lost his bid for the episcopal throne to the “learned and sensible” Nectarius of Tarsus.113 Melanchthon allows Gregory one frustrated utterance about councils (about how he has never seen anything good come out of them), perhaps because Melanchthon himself was fond of citing this quotation as an indication of his own low expectations for the council called at Trent.114 Melanchthon draws to a conclusion by highlighting the theological topics to which Gregory had made contributions. He upheld the Nicene Creed, confirming that its words were consonant with the ancient doctrine of the Church. He countered the Manichees and “the enemies of grace”; he wrote against the Novatianists, Cathars, and Donatists who denied the efficacy of God in the proclamation of the Gospel and in the sacrament of baptism; quoting Gregory, Melanchthon asks, “what is more delightful than the God who baptizes?” Finally, he defended the true nature of Christ as Son of God, the Logos, who is eternally begotten from the Father and is present in the preaching of the Word. And we might pause to note that late in life, even as he speaks of the Trinity (the God who 111 De Gregorio, 281. See McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 312. 112 De Gregorio, 282. 113 Gregory did not lay aside the episcopal office as easily as Melanchthon indicates. Gregory’s own bitterness over Maximus is recorded in his autobiographical poem, De Vita Sua (PG 37, 1155 – 56; CPG §3036), see McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 314 – 16. The specific actions against Gregory by Alexandrian patriarch Peter and his successor Timothy are not mention by Melanchthon. For an account of Gregory’s ambivalence, frustration, and subsequent resignation from the Council, see McGuckin, 358 – 67. 114 Melanchthon is citing Gregory’s letter to Procopius; De Gregorio, 282.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

100

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

baptizes) and the true nature of the Incarnation, Melanchthon is binding these central doctrines to the benefits of Christ pro nobis. He concludes by admonishing his listeners to follow the example of Gregory, confident that we are not following the words of a mere mortal but rather the perpetual voice of the Church.115 Pressing his case further, the printer included an addendum to the oration, spoken by one of the candidates, addressed to the dean and chief administrator (praecancellarie) of the university (i. e., Lechner), and probably also written by Melanchthon. He affirms that the life of Gregory is most edifying in the current situation of the Church. He admonishes them to promote the memory of Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Amphilocius of Iconium, for in them we find models of those who affirmed the ancient faith of the Church and defeated heresies while integrating philosophy and eloquence in the Church.116 The appeal at the end of this oration is consistent with nearly every other instance in which Melanchthon was able to commend the Cappadocians. We get an idea of just how important Melanchthon understood these Cappadocian virtues to be for the Church when we see that he sent copies of the oration as gifts.117 What is more, the themes of these latter orations are in accord with the orations he gave twenty and thirty years earlier.

6.5

Images of Melanchthon Associated with the Basil and Nazianzen

6.5.1 Melanchthon and Basil; Cranach the Younger, 1559 In 1559, a painting of Melanchthon came out of the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Younger, in which the elderly Reformer is shown in a red shirt and fur-lined 115 De Gregorio, 283 – 84. 116 De Gregorio, 284 – 85. 117 Melanchthon sent his oration on Basil to at least three people. There are two letters which accompanied Melanchthon’s gift, and one letter from a recipient of the oration thanking Melanchthon. See Letter to Michael Meienburg, 23 February 1545 (MBW 3823/CR 5, 682), “Mitto vobis Oratiunculam de Basilio, cuius lectionem, optarim, vobis voluptati esse”; and the Letter to Vito Theodoro, 17 February 1545 (MBW 3821/CR 5, 680 – 81). See also the letter from Leonard Stoeckel to Melanchthon, dated 12 June 1545 (MBW 3915) thanking him for sending the oration on Basil. Likewise, Melanchthon sent his oration on Gregory as a gift to at least five people. See the Letter to Christoph Leib in Brandenburg-Altstadt;13 March 1558 (MBW 8552/CR 9, 482); Letter to Melchior Junius in Senftenberg, 17 March 1558 (MBW 8555/CR 9, 487); Letter to Johannes Mathesius [in Joachimsthal], 17 March 1558 (MBW 8556/CR 9, 488); Letter to Matthäus Collinus in Prague, 18 March 1558 (MBW 8558/CR 9, 488 – 89); and a letter to Melanchthon acknowledging the gift of the oration from Johannes Aurifaber 14 April 1558 (MBW 8589).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Evaluation of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen

101

coat, holding an open book.118 On the left-hand side of the page (from the perspective of the viewer) is a Greek quotation from St. Basil on grace. Because of the citation given in the painting itself, we are able to identify its source: the 1532 edition of Basil’s work by Erasmus.119 The quotation is from a sermon on humility, reflecting on 1 Corinthians 1: 26 – 30. The text reads: Hear the words of the Apostle [Paul]: He who desires to boast, should boast in the Lord. He means that for us Christ became the wisdom from God, righteousness, holiness and salvation; thereby, as it is written, the one who desires to boast should boast in the Lord. Then this is the true and only boast in God: that no one may extol himself in his own righteousness, except in so far as he discerns that within him true righteousness is lacking and that only through the grace of Christ is he made justified.

The right-hand side of the page presents a Latin poem, composed in 1553 by Melanchthon, as a reflection on the text. The poem reads as follows: Did you ever see a man begin a journey towards a goal and success, who did not depend on God for his guidance and help? His help is there, if in the confidence of the justified each man only attempts to fulfill the duties of his office with diligence. And from the power of assistance caused by Christ’s Help endures and one need never doubt that it is not already there. Every deed, of need by humanity and you yourself, will be accomplished so, and a favorable wind will glide you further on the way. No power can ever inhibit the victorious hand of God, Everything must with acceptance and happiness give way to God, Yes, even Fate, so strong, harsh as a Judge’s command, Must yield to God if He wills it to us through prayer. God is not like the imprisoned idols, as the Stoics understood, God is God, and so must He be. He can freeze the blazing Sun in its path, He can command the raging river to be as silent as stones. O Logos, Son of God! Be present in our thoughts and through your Spirit let our hearts be fastened to you!120 118 The exact circumstances surrounding the painting are unknown, such as whether the painting is from the hand of the master himself or one of his craftsmen and whether Melanchthon personally sat for the painting. 119 The top of the page reads “BASILIVS pagina 388,” the page on which the text is found in the Greek edition of 1532 by Erasmus (B638). 120 The Latin original (as well as a German translation) is found in Heinz Scheible, Philipp Melanchthon: Eine Gestalt der Reformationszeit (Karlsruhe: Landesbildstelle Baden, 1995), 104 – 5. This is a correction of Kusukawa’s statement that the Latin inscription in the painting is a translation of the Greek; see Sachiko Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy : The Case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995), 194 and 196. Portions of this poem exist in earlier sources, with some variation. This poem, without the first two lines, is list in the CR 10, 627 (Carmina) and is dated 1553. The last two lines seem to have been taken from another poem, dated 12 December 1556 (CR 10, 636) and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

102

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

The quotation from Basil on grace is one of the most cited patristic references by Melanchthon. We find that it plays a pivotal role in his defense that Evangelical theology concerning justification is rooted in the best of the Fathers. Melanchthon also often repeats this quotation as a dedicatory inscription to books he sent as gifts to friends and colleagues. Melanchthon’s understanding of grace and the significance he attached to this quotation from Basil will be elaborated upon in Chapter Six. Repeated in a visual image, we see in this painting an explicit connection made (most likely by Melanchthon himself) between Evangelical theology and patristic authority, especially concerning the most central doctrine of Lutheranism, through St. Basil. The painting — as much as any sermon or theological treatise — underlines the authority and legacy of Basil that Melanchthon claimed for himself and the Reformation. 6.5.2 Melanchthon and Gregory Nazianzen; Cranach Workshop, 1560 In 1560, another portrait of Melanchthon appeared out of the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Younger. This much smaller painting is identical in setting to the 1559 work; Melanchthon is presented in the same clothing and pose.121 The later work is different only in minor details. The image is framed in gold with a Latin inscription underneath. Like the 1559 portrait, Melanchthon is holding an open book upon which a Greek quotation is found (written by hand). This time, however, the quotation is from St. Gregory Nazianzen. The inscription across both pages reads: p÷m t¹ Áato¢o}lemom pa± ¢eoO 1sti, d]dotai d³ to?¬ Áakoul]moir Áa· outy meqousi.122 As with the quotation from Basil, we find this repeated in a postil on the Feast of St. Elizabeth (CR 24, 854). Portions of the poem appear again, this time in reference to John the Baptist, with no date (CR 10: 652). 121 The painting is found in a richly decorated Bible published in Wittenberg, 1560. A color copy is displayed in a history of the University of Tübingen; see Hansmartin Decker-Hauff and Wilfried Setzler, eds., Die Universität Tübingen von 1477 bis 1977 in Bildern und Dokumenten, vol. 3 (Tübingen: Attempto, 1977), 67. The image is currently held in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich. According to Hans-Peter Hasse, the Greek script in the miniature is from Melanchthon’s own hand, “Melanchthon und die ‘Alba amicorum’: Melanchthons Theologie im Spiegel seiner Bucheintragungen,” Der Theologe Melanchthon, ed. Günther Frank (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2000), 291 – 338, esp. image 5. 122 English translation: “All virtue comes from God, however, it is given to those who are called and to those who are promised, not to those who are opposed.” According to Meijering, this is a liberal citation of Oration 37, 13 (PG 36, 297; CPG §3010). This oration was translated by Oecolampadius in 1519, entitled In dictum Matthaei (VD16 G3048, G3052, and G3053) and also included in Pirkheimer’s translation of 1531, entitled In dictum Evangelii (G3082). The Greek version of the oration does not seem to have been printed until 1550 (G3019). See Way, Catalogus, 147, 152, and 53, respectively. The Greek quotation from the miniature has been corrected. The difficulty in discerning some of the characters can be attributed to one of two realities: the Greek characters used in the sixteenth century, especially the eta and sigma, are different from modern characters or the artist who was transcribing the quotation was not familiar with the Greek language.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

103

Conclusion

particular quotation from Gregory Nazianzen often repeated in Melanchthon’s elaborations on the primacy of God’s grace. Underneath the painting, we find a Latin poem that is reminiscent of a quotation from Basil. It concerns bees collecting nectar from flowers: Just as a bee drawing liquid from different flowers,/ Makes its product drawn from subtle nectar,/ So brilliant Melanchthon your mind collects selected words/ And brings forth writings filled with good truths./ This bee, mindful of his office, working for the common good,/ to be pleasing to God, all desire what he does./ Yield, degenerate ones, with the dark heart of the drone,/ This bee is safe by the vindicator himself, God.123

As with the first painting, the exact circumstances under which the 1560 portrait was made cannot be known. We are eager to know if the quotation from Gregory Nazianzen was provided to the painter by Melanchthon or if Melanchthon’s use of the quotation was so familiar to the painter that he included it on his own volition. Whatever the case may be, we see in these two paintings visual proof of Melanchthon’s conscientious association with these two great Cappadocian Fathers.

7.

Conclusion

Through this examination, we can form a general sketch of what can be known of the contents of the Cappadocian canon in the sixteenth century through Melanchthon citation of and references to these sources. As a result, we have a pretty good idea of which Cappadocians’ works were available to Melanchthon, when they became available to him, and in what language he would have read them. In examining Melanchthon’s own orations, postils, and a patrology, we have seen that he used these accounts to highlight the Cappadocians as historical exemplars for the future of the Church, while also ignoring the miracle stories which were most popular in the Middle Ages (i. e., as in the Golden Legend). Melanchthon’s interest in Greek patristic sources was quite common for his time. 123 “Sicut apis uario sugens e flore liquorem,/ Subtili pressum nectare fingit opus:/ Sic selecta etiam tibi mens argute Melanthon/ Et ueris gignit scripta referta bonis./ Haec apis officii memor in commune laborans,/ Esse Deo gratum, quod facit omne cupit./ Dedice degeneres fucato pectore fuci./ Haec Apis ipso uindice tuta DEO.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

104

Melanchthon and Greek Patristic Sources

Melanchthon is unique, however, for his studied approach to the Cappadocians, both for their image as theologians and Churchmen (who were well versed in the classics as well as biblical studies and who, as bishops and educators, saturated their theology with such learning) but also as scriptores puriores, whose works faithfully hand over the apostolic faith. Melanchthon’s association with the Cappadocians was so strong that it is no accident that he is twice portrayed with quotations from Basil and Nazianzen.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Chapter 3: Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

There is not one of the ancient heresies which does not seem to sprout forth again with these authors. Therefore, it is profitable to exhort unwary men to flee the Anabaptists. ‘Satan walks to and fro as a roving lion, seeking whom he may devour [1 Peter 5:8].’ For what else are their arguments but diabolical snares? . . . Moreover, the Anabaptists have many other masks which they declare by what spirit they are being led. Paul orders us to try the spirits. And thus they counsel evil with themselves who join with this faction. . . . What they teach is simply ungodly: that is it not permissible for Christians to administer civil offices or to obey the decisions of magistrates, to execute judgment, or to use the sword against criminals and similar teachings concerning which topics we have often spoke in other places. . . . It is clear enough that those who teach such wicked dogmas are not of God. There never has been a more perilous time, and we must be more diligent, lest we accept spirits that have not been tried.1 Against the Anabaptists, 1528 Sed nos omissis rixis vocabulorum Ecclesiae sententiam fideliter retineamus et verbis iam in Ecclesia usitatis et receptis sine ambiguitate utamur. Lusit homo fanaticus Servetus de vocabulo Personae et disputat olim Latinis significasse habitum aut officii distinctionem.2 Loci communes, 1543

1.

Introduction

This chapter will discuss Philipp Melanchthon’s response to the Radical Reformers. I will focus on two particular points of the debate. First, I will describe Melanchthon’s justification for the fundamental unity of the Church and the Academy against those who rejected formal theological education in favor of 1 MSA 1, 272 – 95. English translation in Melanchthon: Selection Writings, trans. Charles Leander Hill (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962), 102 – 22. 2 CR 21, 613 – 14.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

106

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. In these instances, we will see that Melanchthon appealed to the Cappadocians as exemplars of learned, orthodox theologians who employed their mastery of classical learning in service to the Church. Second, I examine Melanchthon’s affirmation of the particular dogmatic Trinitarian and Christological “vocabulary of the Church” in the debates of the 1530s and 1550s, especially against John Campanus and Michael Servetus. In order to demonstrate Melanchthon’s appeals, we will pay particular attention to the revisions made to the Loci communes. Again, we find that Melanchthon invoked the contributions of the Cappadocians as trustworthy guides for reading and interpreting the biblical testimony. Moreover, the creed attributed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus became a keystone in Melanchthon’s arguments against the anti-Trinitarians. Underlying both the affirmation of a broad theological education and a defense of orthodox theology is Melanchthon’s understanding of theology as adhering to the traditional “theological grammar.”

2.

The Radical Reformers

George H. Williams’s The Radical Reformation remains the most comprehensive analysis of the movement.3 The modifier “radical” is appropriate in so far as it captures both the effort to return to and re-establish a “pure” apostolic community on earth. Moreover, it indicates an extreme position (relative to the magisterial reforms of Lutheranism or Calvinism and certainly the established authority of the Roman Catholic church) on a host of theological and social concerns. Yet, the term “Radical Reformers” applies to a disparate group of individuals throughout the German territories (and indeed, all of Europe). Some were pacifists, some called for open rebellion against Church and State; some were university educated and members of the noble class; most were members of the semi-literate masses. These individuals are often also commonly referred to as: Anabaptists (for their affirmation of re-baptism),4 Sacramentarians (for rejecting the sacraments as means of grace), Spiritualists (for their mystical, apocalyptical emphasis) and Abecedarians (for their rejection of basic educa3 George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminister), 1962; third edition (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers), 1992. 4 The practice of re-baptism, however, was not universal among the Radical Reformers. Technically speaking, the term Anabaptist or “re-baptizer” is appropriate, since these individuals placed such an emphasis on a personal and emotional conversion to a renewed conviction for Christian life as to render any baptism received as an infant invalid (since conversion precedes the sacrament for them). Theologically speaking, however, they would argue that they are not re-baptizing but instead offering a real and valid baptism for the adult who had made an informed and convinced affirmation of faith. For this reason, they were often labeled as Donatists.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Radical Reformers

107

tion). Melanchthon preferred to label them as Donatists. By labeling these radical movements under the name of an ancient heresy he hoped to bring to bear the imperial legal injunctions, established by Emperor Theodosius II, against them. In particular, Donatism was a capital offense. Charles V, as Holy Roman Emperor, re-enforced these laws against the Anabaptists with the unanimous consent of both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic representatives at the Diet of Speyer, 1529.5 For our purposes, we will refer to two groups of Radical Reformers: the Anabaptists (who will be discussed primarily in the first half of this chapter) and the anti-Trinitarians (who will be discussed primarily in the latter half). Though not mutually exclusive, these two terms provide a more accurate general description than those previously mentioned, since not all the Radical Reformers rejected education or were influenced by mysticism. Evangelical struggles with the Radical Reformers came fairly early (1525). Luther called the Radical Reformers “ravers” (i. e., Schwärmer).6 Melanchthon had his own name for them: the autodidaktoi – “the self-taught.”7 To my knowledge, this derogatory label of the Radical Reformers is unique to Melanchthon; it has no antecedent among his humanist predecessors or colleagues. Yet, the designation cannot be taken literally. Some leaders of the Radical Reformers were trained in the Humanist tradition; some could read Latin, Greek and even Hebrew. Many had matriculated at universities and a great majority of them found support for their theology in the ante-Nicene Fathers. In fact, some prominent theologians of the Radical Reformation shared an intellectual heritage with the other humanistically-trained leaders of reform in other confessions. For example: Andreas Karlstadt embraced reform after a 5 Lutherans in particular were adamant at the Diet of Augsburg (1530) in their own condemnations of ancient heresies to emphasize not only their theological orthodoxy but also to provide no legitimate legal recourse (i. e., the application of ancient Roman laws against heresy) against them. Some early Roman Catholic polemicists nonetheless charged Luther with Donatism, see Hugo Lämmer, Die vortridentinische-katholische Theologie (Berlin: G. Schlawitz 1858; reprint, Frankfurt/Main: Minerva, 1966) 22 & 58. See also David Wright, “Donatists in the Sixteenth Century,” Auctoritas Patrum II: Neue Beiträge zum Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. Und 16. Jahrhundert, eds. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), 281 – 93. Melanchthon himself calls the Anabaptists “Donatists,” see De Anabaptistis ad Philipp. Hess., 1536 (MBW 1748/CR 3, 199). Melanchthon also cited Nazianzen against the Anabaptists: “Eadem est figura sigilli, sive aureo sive ferreo annulo insculpta sit, ita idem esse minsterium inquit, sive boni sive mali teneant,” Declamatio de Gregorio Nazianzeno, 1558 (CR 12, 283) and the Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 841), which includes an entire subsection entitled “Against the Donatists.” According to Meijering, this statement is from Oration 40, 26 In sanctum baptisma (MPG 36, 396). 6 Melanchthon also used this term, see MBW 609. 7 CR 11, 326.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

108

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

careful study of Augustine; Thomas Müntzer’s understanding of the corruption of the Church was based on repeated references to Eusebius; Francisco Stancarus was praised as a homo trium linguarum; Michael Servetus based his anti-Trinitarian theology on Tertullian and Irenaeus; Caspar Schwenkfeld corresponded with leading humanists Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito; and Lelio Sozzini grounded his adoptionist Christology on a linguistic analysis (following Erasmus) of k|cor as “speech.” For the sake of clarity, this chapter will focus on Melanchthon’s response to the anti-intellectual aspects of the Anabaptists and his rigorous affirmation of the orthodox Christological and Trinitarian formulae. I will discuss Melanchthon’s interactions with the Zwickau Prophets, John Campanus, and Michael Servetus. However, such arguments did not occur in isolation from other conflicts Melanchthon had with a diverse group of “radical” reformers. I suggest, then, that we should understand Melanchthon’s criticism as follows: the Radical Reformers are “self-educated” in so far as they do not think “with” the Church; they have departed from the broad catholic theological heritage, grammatica sermonis divini and the vocabulorum Ecclesiae. What prevents the same criticism being applied to Melanchthon, or any other reformer for that matter? As has been discussed, Melanchthon understood the evangelical reforms he supported as restoring the solus Christus and his Gospel to the center of the Church. The pure preaching of the Gospel and the harmonious administration of the sacraments provided a dynamism for and dialogical exchange with certain practices that might need to be reformed over time. Nevertheless, the Evangelical reform left intact the orthodox Christological and Trinitarian creedal affirmations of the Church. What is more, Melanchthon understood that such affirmations (i. e., the full humanity and divinity of Christ) were necessary to allow for the fullest meaning of what God has done in Christ pro nobis. For example, if Christ were neither fully divine nor fully human (as Chalcedon asserts he is), Christ could not have effected the justification that Evangelicals claimed came solely through him. Melanchthon based his theological principle on the person of Christ alone. Further, unlike many of his colleagues, Melanchthon never idealized a particular historical era as a “golden age.” There is, rather, a golden thread of doctrine which consistently runs through the tradition, though in any given age it may be sometimes more, sometimes less discernable. Though, from the very beginning (i. e., with Cain and Abel) the Church has always been subject to strife and error (e. g., the “Age of Origen”), Melanchthon believed that the true Church has always existed by the grace of God. Even in the worst historical periods a “small remnant” remained.8 Melanchthon always had the conviction that the 8 See Fraenkel, Testimonia, 100 – 07. The Middle Ages in general and Gregory the Great in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Radical Reformers

109

Gospel (what God has done for us in Christ) belonged at the heart of the Church’s thought and praxis. Furthermore, essential doctrines always went hand in hand with the gospel and could be linked back through a concrete historical chain of testes veritatis: through the testimony of purer writers, through the Creeds, through the Apostolic testimony, through the Scriptures, to the gospel.9

2.1

The Zwickau Prophets

Melanchthon’s first encounter with radical reformers was through the Zwickau Prophets; i. e., Nickolaus Storch, Marcus Stübner, and Thomas Dreschel.10 While a member of St. Catherine’s parish in Zwickau (where another radical, Thomas Müntzer, was pastor), Storch claimed to have received a divine call which gave him both visions of the future and apostolic authority. When Müntzer was expelled from the city, Storch – a wool weaver by trade – took over leadership of the parish (or at least, its more radical faction). Soon afterwards, however, he too was expelled for allegedly allowing women to preach. Storch then, with his two companions, journeyed to Wittenberg. Arriving on December 27, 1521, they were soon interviewed by Melanchthon and Nickolaus von Amsdorf. All who interviewed them were impressed by the earnestness of their convictions. However, certain habits raised doubts in the mind of Melanchthon and others: Stübner insisted on adult baptism and all three refused “fraternal admonition” in the face of their calls for immediate and

particular suffers heavy criticism from Melanchthon for instituting clerical celibacy and masses for the dead (ibid., 96 – 100). Among the small remnant then who continued to preach (more or less) the pure gospel were St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter Lombard (at least in comparison to the Scholasticism that followed), and even the first Franciscans (though they too quickly fell into corruption). 9 See Fraenkel, Testimonia, 183 – 84. Moreover, doctrines can be ranked, as some later doctrines (though not always instituted in ignorance or with malice) can begin to obscure more important doctrines. See Confessio Saxonica, 1551 (MSA 6, 80 – 167; esp. 86). 10 I am excepting Andreas Karlstadt, who – though he obviously predates the arrival of the Zwickau Prophets in Wittenberg and though growing more zealous for immediate and sweeping reforms – was still at this time (1521) a colleague in good standing at the University and collaborator with Melanchthon and others for liturgical reform. Even after Luther returned in March of 1522 (to denounce and reverse the liturgical reforms instigated on Christmas Day, 1521 and New Year’s Day, 1522), Karlstadt remained an active faculty member with strained but collegial relations with both Luther and Melanchthon until his departure in 1523 from the University for the parish at Orlamünde; see Sider, Karlstadt: Development, 172 – 75. Sider also denies any direct influence of the Prophets on Karlstadt, arguing that he paid them very little mind, in contrast to Melanchthon (163).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

110

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

radical reforms.11 Since they claimed authority through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they likewise claimed to be free from the scrutiny of theological questions, even from Scripture. It was the Holy Spirit who descended from heaven, not the Bible.12 The Zwickau Prophets eventually faded into obscurity and seemed to have wandered in and out of Wittenberg as itinerant preachers. In fact, none of the Prophets were in town when Luther returned in early March, 1522. Soon after, Luther did meet with the three and confirmed the opinions of Melanchthon and others. Luther dismissed them on the grounds that their pandering to the mobs revealed a greater interest in rabble-rousing than the Word of God.13 Nevertheless, this was a very early instance in which Melanchthon confronted first hand such appeals to individual authority in the name of direct divine inspiration above any appeal to Scripture or doctrine. In light of the Zwickau Prophets’ rejection of formal theological education, the Wittenberg reformation was also shocked by a similar affirmation by one of its most learned faculty members: Andreas Karlstadt. In 1523, though an archdeacon, former dean, master of arts, and doctor of three disciplines (theology, canon law, and civil law), Karlstadt announced his renunciation of academic trappings, since the simple piety of a peasant was more pleasing to God than the intellectualism of a velvet-robed academic.14 Citing the admonition of Christ to his disciples (Matthew 23:1 – 12), Karlstadt now instructed people to address him simply as “Brother Andrew.” While Melanchthon’s works against the Anabaptists was concerned primarily with the necessity of infant baptism, part and parcel of his anti-Anabaptist work was an affirmation of the working of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church by means of communal (i. e., public) testimonies. This public testimony of the Church was found not only in Word and Sacrament but also in the study of biblical languages, history, and carefully articulated doctrine.15 Melanchthon’s first work against the Anabaptists was Adversus anabaptistas iudicium (1528).16 This work defends the definition of a sacrament, especially 11 Melanchthon expressed his concerns in a letter to Luther ; see MBW 640. See also Edwards, False Brethren, 24. 12 Sider, Karlstadt: Development, 162. 13 See Edwards, False Brethren, 26. Afterwards, Stübner and Dreschel fade into complete obscurity. Storch became an itinerant preacher and died in Munich, 1525. 14 See Sider, Karlstadt: Development, 8, 11 – 12, & 176 – 79. Soon after, Karlstadt would leave the university and begin pastoral duties (which were part of his duties as the recipient of the All Saints Foundation) in a parish in Orlamünde. 15 Of course, inherent to this understanding is the affirmation (as voiced in Articles Five and Fourteen of the Augsburg Confession) that no one should preach or teach without a proper, public call. Article Five specifically condemned the Anabaptists for their highly individualized understanding of inspiration. 16 MSA 1, 272 – 95.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Radical Reformers

111

that they are reliable “signs of the divine will towards us and not mere signs of our profession [among] men,” that baptism is efficacious for infants, since they too belong to the Kingdom of God, and baptism is necessary due to Original Sin. The gifts that the Holy Spirit imparts to individuals are inexorably tied to the public and proper preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. He concluded by rejecting two Anabaptist principles: that Christians cannot hold public office and that all property should be held in common. He argues that Christians are compelled toward, not away from, public service. Further, the call to hold all property in common as the earliest apostles did (i. e., Acts 2:44 – 45) is – like clerical celibacy – a counsel to those who so desire, not a necessary command on all Christians. Melanchthon’s next anti-radical polemic was written in 1536, Verlegung etlicher unchristlicher Artikel welche die Widerteuffer fürgeben.17 Like the previously mentioned work, this treatise is more concerned to counter the biblical support offered by the Anabaptists for their social platform and to encourage the princes and magistrates of the Empire to be adamant in their persecution. Melanchthon argued that the humility of the radicals was a ploy. Their claim to be pacifists is negated by the fact that they initiated rebellion. Therefore, the princes should be vigilant shepherds and remove these wolves in sheep’s clothing from the flock of God. Like Müntzer, those who have taken up the sword deserve to die by the sword.18 These two works, though pointed, are brief and affirm the basic biblical and social principles underlying the Evangelical criticism of the radical Reformers. These works are also didactic, almost catechetical, in their repeated emphases for the benefit of a general audience (the Adversus anabaptistas iudicium was very quickly translated into German). A final work should be noted here, the Refutatio erroris Serveti et Anabaptistarum.19 The primary target is Michael Servetus and the arguments against him will be discussed in the following section. However, two things are worth noting. First, as late as the 1550s, Melanchthon was reaffirming the same fundamental theological convictions against the Anabaptists. Second, though Servetus’s ties to the Anabaptist movement were tenuous, he shared with them (according to Melanchthon) a rejection of the orthodox Christological and 17 MSA 1, 301 – 22; compare to Narratio de Anabaptistis, 1535 (MBW 1671/CR 2, 997 – 1004); Narratio de Anabaptistis, 1536 (MBW 1687/CR 3, 17 – 21); and De Anabaptistis ad Philipp. Hess., 1536 (MBW 1748/CR 3, 195 – 201). The first two are reports of interviews that Melanchthon and Caspar Cruciger had with three Anabaptists imprisoned in Jena. 18 Verlegung etlicher unchristlicher Artikel, MSA 1, 304. For our interests, we should note two things: Melanchthon specifically links Anabaptists, for their rejection of marriage, false piety, and rejection of the Scriptures to Manichaeism. Finally, he cites Origen and Cyprian in defense of infant baptism (305 & 319, respectively). 19 See MSA 6, 365 – 77. It was written in the 1558 and first published in the Corpus doctrinae christianae, 1560.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

112

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

Trinitarian formulae. Thus, Melanchthon was able to articulate against both the Anabaptists and Servetus their shared theological errors: a failure to listen to the purest teachers of the Church and a flawed understanding of how the Holy Spirit works upon and within the Church. The Refutatio begins with an affirmation of the one true Church. Melanchthon appealed to the creedal affirmation of “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church” which has remained and will remain in union with God through Christ. Though mixed with many impious individuals and much abused through the ages, the Church of Christ endures. The Church has often been renewed through reform. Yet, each reform does not create a new institution. Rather, the same Church remains in harmony and in consensus with the ancient Church established by the Apostles.20 In these introductory paragraphs, Melanchthon has asserted a principle intolerable to the Anabaptists: the Church of God has remained forever, never abandoned by God.21 Melanchthon’s articulation of history was in direct opposition to that of the Anabaptists. As early as 1519, Müntzer studied Eusebius and came to the conclusion that the apostolic faith had been corrupted by the imperial Church. Perhaps the most influential historian of the radical movement was Sebastian Franck (1499 – 1542). After first vigorously opposing the movement as pastor in Gustenfelden (near Nuremberg), by 1529 Franck had moved to Strasbourg and become of its most prominent proponents. In 1531, Franck published the Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, modeled after the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493). Therein, Franck argued that “heretics” were actually heroes of the apostolic faith; a faith which has been corrupted by classical philosophy and servitude to political authorities. In 1540, Melanchthon drafted a resolution (unanimously approved by the Schmalcaldic League) banning Franck from its member states. For Melanchthon, affirming the ancient Creeds go hand in hand with a proper proclamation of the Gospel. Thus, the Lutheran confessions are in harmony with the ancient Church and – most importantly – they 20 Refutatio erroris Serveti (MSA 6, 365). 21 See Heinrick Karpp, Schrift, Geist, und Wort Gottes: Geltung und Wirkung der Bibel in der Geschichte der Kirche bis zum Ausgang der Reformationszeit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992); Simon L. Verheus, Zeugnis und Gericht: Kirchengeschichtliche Betrachtungen bei Sebastian Franck und Matthias Flacius (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1971); Rudolf Stadelmann, Vom Geist des Ausgehenden Mittelalters: Studien zur Geschichte der Weltanschauung von Nicolaus Cusanus bis Sebastian Franck (Halle: M. Neimeyer, 1929); and Alfred Hegler, Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck (Freiburg i.B.: Mohr, 1892). The following work should also be noted, Geoffrey Dipple, ‘Just as in the Time of the Apostles’: Uses of History in the Radical Reformation (Ontario: Pandora, 2005). Dipple is reacting against previous scholarship which has ignored the diverse approaches to history among the radical Reformers. Moreover, he argues that their appropriation of history was not always primitivistic.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Theological Criticisms of Radicalism

113

are so because they adhere to the ancient creeds. We see that this most basic affirmation – “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church” – is a creedal one, applying a theological method often used in the early Church: lex orandi, lex credendi. Melanchthon concluded this point with a quotation of St. Gregory Nazianzen, in which the Church is compared to the Ark, and only by remaining within are we saved: “This little verse by Nazianzen is worth remembering: ‘I seek an ark, Noah, so that I might escape a dire fate!’ But the clear refutations of the Anabaptists should be taken from writings that I have often repeated.” This quotation is given in Greek and used (as far I as could tell) only twice in Melanchthon’s works, both from the late 1550s.22 In our discussions so far, Melanchthon’s anti-Anabaptist works have focused on defending the practice of infant baptism and the received public order. These were the pressing concerns of the common people (and of course, the magistrates). For Melanchthon, the Anabaptists threatened the foundations of both Church and society.23 Therefore, for the edification of future pastors, teachers, counselors, and administrators of the Empire – i. e., students at the University (and the noblemen who funded such institutions) – Melanchthon attacked the anti-intellectual wing of the Radical Reformation by justifying the union of Church and Academy. We will now examine three orations and one final treatise.

3.

Theological Criticisms of Radicalism

3.1

On the Merit of Theological Studies: The Unity of Church and Academy

In an oration entitled On the Merit of Theological Studies (1537), Melanchthon laid out his broadest and most articulate charge.24 The Radical Reformers are rejected because they have corrupted the purity of the gospel by denying the witness of the pure teachers of that gospel throughout the ages. Two principles deeply rooted in Melanchthon’s thought are affirmed in this work, which leads to his harshest criticism of the movement. First, he confirmed (no doubt referring to Ephesians 4:11 – 14) the connection between the Church and the Academy : 22 See Refutatio erroris Serveti (366). The line, in iambic hexameter, is from is from Gregory’s Carmena de se ipso, 2022,61 (PG 37, 1243; CPG §3036). 23 See Oyer, Lutheran Reformers against the Anabaptists, 138 – 39 & 174 – 75. Melanchthon, more than his Evangelical colleagues, supported using the death penalty against such radicals. 24 De Dignitate Studii Theologici, 1537 (CR 11, 324 – 29). The oration was written by Melanchthon, delivered by Caspar Cruciger, Dean of Theology. English translation, “On the merit of studying theology,” Orations on Philosophy and Education, ed. Sachiko Kusukawa, trans. Christine F. Salazar (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999), 182 – 87.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

114

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

For these studies in the schools pertain properly to the preservation of the Church ministry. With that intention schools were established in the past in Alexandria and in several congregations, so that teachers and ministers of the Church could be taken from there. For Christ gave the Church ministers, prophets, and teachers, He wants the Church to be established and taught by them, and He wants those who are to be placed in authority over the Church to be prepared, and He does not want men who are utterly unlearned to be put in authority, or inexperienced men who consider themselves selftaught and invent beliefs from themselves, without any spiritual guidance.25

Here we see what Fraenkel referred to as Melanchthon’s “traditionalism.”26 The gospel does not come to us by itself, the Holy Spirit does not move outside of the community of faith. This Church is a real and concrete community. It is no “Platonic republic” but a place of active preaching and service and made both visible and tangible through the Word and sacraments. Individual “revelation” – if it is to be valid – must be confirmed by the gospel. The validity of the Church’s teaching is confirmed by the veracity of its purest teachers. As previously discussed, Melanchthon envisioned a personal connection between teacher and pupil; Apostolic Succession is the transmission of pure teaching (and not a succession in episcopal office).27 Most important for our consideration is the reference to these three Cappadocians – Gregory Thaumaturgus, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen – who are repeatedly called upon by Melanchthon as exemplars of how apostolic doctrine was handed down throughout the Church and often in a direct, personal, teacher-pupil relationship.28 If the early Church so benefitted by listening to 25 CR 11, 326; Kusukawa, Orations, 184. See also a letter written 6 May 1545 addressed to the city council of Halle, Melanchthon declared, “The education of the youth is not only a praiseworthy and necessary responsibility within the realm of secular matters . . . but it even has a direct relevance to divine revelation” (MBW 3895/CR 5, 754). 26 That is, a concerted effort to root the Evangelical movement within the tradition. For Fraenkel (and later, Backus) this is part and parcel of an appeal to the authority of Scripture. However, some scholars have seen such traditionalism as the Melanchthonian principle that undermined Luther’s theological breakthrough. For Fraenkel’s summary of earlier scholarship in this regard, see Testimonia, 24 – 28. 27 CR 11, 326 – 27; Kusukawa, Orations, 184 – 85. 28 The concept of a teacher-pupil relationship between theologians of the ancient Church who hand down to us trustworthy doctrine and the inclusion of all or part of the Cappadocians here studied is mentioned at least thirteen different times in Melanchthon’s work: Preface to Viet Dietrich’s edition of Luther’s Enarratio psalmi secundi, 1546 (MBW 4205/CR 6, 89); Letter to Archbishop Sigismund as a preface to the Chronicon Carionis, 1558 (MBW 9112/CR 9, 531 – 38); Questiones Academicae, 1542 (CR 10, 737), NB: women are given as models as well (Elizabeth – Anne – Mary); De dignitate studii theologici, 1537 (CR 11, 326); Declamatio de Polycarpo, 1542 (CR 11, 561 – 62); Coniuntione Scholasticarum, 1543 (CR 11, 606 & 611); Declamatio de dono interpretationis, 1544 (CR 11, 646); Chronicon Carionis, 1558 (CR 12, 976, 1002 – 3, & 1005); Loci communes, 1543 (CR 21, 622 & 826); De ecclesia et de autoritate verbi dei, 1539 (CR 23, 596).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Theological Criticisms of Radicalism

115

these teachers, how much more so should we listen to them and our own teachers? We should make known “which teachers we have heard.” The stakes are too high to do otherwise, and Melanchthon testified to results that plague the Church when “the doctrine of the gospel from such teachers, whose judgments we can safely follow”: Later, uneducated men were admitted to leading the Church, without attestation of the teachers, and, as Gregory of Nazianzen said, they were immediately made teachers, just as in stories giants are called giants as soon as they are born. From that practice a great confusion of doctrine originated. . . . Therefore . . . let us attend to it that those who are to undertake the Church ministry be honestly instructed, and that neither the uneducated nor self-educated (autodidaktoi) be received. For we see in our age the fanatical beliefs of the Anabaptists originated only from the uneducated and the selfeducated (autodidaktois). [We] gladly admit that [we] are not self-educated, but students [of the Gospel].29

The Cappadocians were likewise such students of the Gospel, and therefore are our exemplary teachers: both for how we are to serve God in the Church and to affirm what the Church is to teach about God.30 And yet, Melanchthon does not idealize these teachers. While he affirmed the necessity of remaining faithful to the body of doctrine handed down by the pure teachers of the Church, he does not equate “the Church” necessarily with every practice and judgment of the institutional Church. Therefore, appeals to authority by the Roman Catholic church based upon the alleged authority of the pope as a successor to St. Peter (see Matt 16:18) was no comfort nor a certain guide. In fact, too facile an appeal to this passage called into question the authority of the papacy, given its long history of demonstrable errors and corruption. The repeated reform attempts – and subsequent failure – of various popes in the late middle ages only added to the sense of frustration and futility of self-regulated reform of “head and members.” In this rejection of a caesaropapal understanding of the Church, Melanchthon and the Anabaptists were in agreement. For the Anabaptists, the unfathomable moral gulf they perceived between the contemporary papal Church and the simple purity of the biblical apostolic Church was itself proven by the doctrinal corruptions that had seeped into the Church through the intervening centuries. In the Anabaptist call to return to the simplicity of direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit as modeled by the Apostles, 29 CR 11, 327; Kusukawa, Orations, 185. 30 The admonition to provide theologians with extensive training, with reference to Basil and Nazianzen, is repeated twice more. First, in a letter Melanchthon wrote to the Scholarship Commission of the City of Hamburg, 18 November 1547 (MBW 4962/CR 6, 727) and the second occurs in a letter of recommendation for Christof Camerarius, dated 13 February 1552 (MBW 6347/CR 7, 943).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

116

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

they also called into question the accepted doctrines of the Church not explicitly found in the Bible. Rejected then was not only infant baptism but also the Christological and Trinitarian creedal formulations of the Church. Some radicals were less antagonistic, arguing that the formulations of Nicaea and Chalcedon may in fact be true, but given their non-scriptural status (that is, not being found explicitly in canonical Scripture) they cannot demand our absolute allegiance. Again, we must remember that every reformer of the Church in this period – from the more conservative “Catholic Reformers” to the most “Radical Reformer” – was guided by his study of church history and a study of Scripture through patristic sources. No less than Erasmus, Contarini, Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin, the Radical Reformers were guided by their study of patristic sources and found confirmation of their convictions therein. For the Anabaptists, God had abandoned the institutional Church. They were to follow the example only of the Apostles recorded in Scripture and the martyrs of the first three centuries. The diversity of Christological faith among ante-Nicene sources had confirmed their rejection of all creedal statements. They envisioned a pure apostolic age that predated the Constantinian era. Everything that came after was contaminated by the Church’s involvement with secular affairs, a realm ruled by Satan. It is at this point, however, where Melanchthon and the Anabaptists part ways. While God may have in fact abandoned the pope and curia, according to Melanchthon, God has never abandoned the Church. Further, God has a specific calling for godly magistrates and princes. No doubt, one could find accounts of many failures, abuses, and corruptions (upon which Rome did not have a monopoly). Instead, God sends prophets and teachers to restore purity in praxis and belief: Therefore, in the beginning there were schools in the Church; if only they had preserved the pure teaching passed on from the Apostles. But this was restored later by a great and wonderful favor of God, God gave a prophet again to these last times [i.e., Luther], so that others may be educated, and certainly the Church must again attend to preserving with the greatest zeal the favor of God, that is, the pure doctrine of the Gospel, and to passing it on to later generations.31

Thus, the very image of the Church and its relationship to God by the Anabaptists was denied. Further, Melanchthon implied that, while some radicals may have studied the Fathers, they had either misunderstood them or did not listen to the best Fathers. God has restored the Gospel to the Church (in part by reviving the works of earlier “reformers,” the Fathers who were scriptores puriores); clarity and good order are reestablished. These must now be preserved through proper instruction. Therefore, rather than being extraneous or even 31 CR 11, 326; Kusukawa, Orations, 184.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Theological Criticisms of Radicalism

117

harmful to the “pure Gospel,” education and the degrees conferred are inherent to the mission of the Church.32 Melanchthon exhorts his audience that they may know the radicals by their fruits – which are fanaticism and rebellion: Therefore, since God in His great mercy has restored the light of the Gospel for us, let us give thanks to God, and let us preserve this favor with the greatest zeal in the churches and schools, and let us attend to it that those who are to undertake the Church ministry be honestly instructed, and that neither the uneducated not the self-educated be received. For we see that in our age the fanatical beliefs of the Anabaptists originated only from the uneducated and self-educated. How much do we owe God therefore, who gave us a leader and teacher excelling in faith and correct judgment, by whose teaching we are protected against these fanatical beliefs whose founders often disturbed our Church! However, since many who are educated in this school preside over our Church, who gladly admit that they are not self-educated but students, the experienced leaders established their Church sagaciously, and – assisted by divine help which protects pious teachings – they preserved them in office.33

The Anabaptists have, therefore, fallen into error by failing to heed not only the voice of the Gospel but also the voice of the purest teachers of the Gospel (both past and present; e. g., at Wittenberg). Despite their claims to be directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, they are instead following their own whims, like a ship without a rudder, susceptible to the winds generated by spirits diabolic, not divine. God had given the light of the Gospel to guide us. Just as sailors are guided by the constellations – but must make diligent study of them in order to interpret their significance correctly and necessarily depend upon the guidance of past navigators – so too must the Church study the Gospel to guide it safely and study those who preserve the light of the Gospel. Blinded to this light by their arrogant self-education, the Anabaptists are thrown into confusion, which in turn threatens the social order. Melanchthon was unrelenting in highlighting not only the theological but also the political radicalism of Anabaptists. In his estimation, the Anabaptists were just newer manifestations of the old threat of barbarism.34 Just as the light of the Gospel was again beginning to shine more brightly, their ravings against good order (in Church and society) threatened an eclipse. By rejecting the study of languages, the arts, and higher faculties as the vanities of men and at odds with 32 CR 11, 326; Kusukawa, Orations, 184: “But someone may ask, ‘How does this oration about the ministry concern the schools, and the degrees in schools?’ But I have spoken at such length about the ministry in order that you contemplate with what intention the Holy Scriptures are taught and for what purpose these degrees are established. For these studies in the schools pertain properly to the preservation of the Church ministry.” 33 CR 11, 327; Kusukawa, Orations, 185. 34 Such dangers to the Gospel usually go hand in hand with the eclipse of learning in general. This is a consistent theme in Melanchthon, first articulated in his Inaugural Address at Wittenberg University, De corrigendis adulescentiae studiis, 1518 (CR 11, 15 – 25).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

118

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

God, these radicals discarded the very tools with which humans were able to study the word of God, to know true and everlasting doctrine, and to build just and charitable societies. If the Schools fall, so will the State: “In the Church it is proper for all those of good sense to make provision for that most exalted purpose: to establish, to build, and to protect states, so that the knowledge of God be spread in them. . . . Therefore, let the ruler take care that the universities flourish with their true ornaments.”35 The arguments articulated in 1537 and 1543 echo the work begun by Melanchthon in the 1520s against not only the radicals but also against the idealism of Erasmus.36 It was the divine obligation of godly princes and magistrates (who received their authority from God) to be vigilant against both heresy and barbarism.37

35 On the Necessary Union of Schools with Ministry of the Gospel, 1543 (CR 11, 607 & 615); Kusukawa, Orations, 11 and 15. This oration is a rich source of quotations. One is Melanchthon’s famous affirmation “we were born for mutual dialogue” (Nati sumus ad mutuam sermonis communicationem, ibid., 613). Melanchthon concludes by emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between proper education and a just and orderly society (CR 11, 617 – 18; Kusukawa, Orations, 21). 36 See Timothy J. Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam (Oxford: Oxford University, 1998), 110 – 36. Wengert presents the thesis that Melanchthon developed his understanding of not only the connection but also the distinction between the “two kingdoms” from Luther in 1522. Further, Melanchthon’s thoughts developed primarily against the charges of sedition and anarchy made by Erasmus (and others) against Luther and not in response to the Zwickau Prophets, Karlstadt, and Müntzer (124). In particular, Melanchthon excoriated Erasmus’s articulation of princely authority in the Institutio Principis Christiani, 1515, which failed to articulate the origins of princely authority and misled readers with its complete disavowal of war (125). Wengert (agreeing with Paul Schwarzenau over against Wilhelm Neuser) argues that as early as “the 1522 reworking of the Loci already bore the first fruits of this second encounter [i.e., after the Invocavit Sermons of March, 1522] with Luther. Here one no longer finds justification by faith alone mixed with a radical predestinarianism but a careful delineation of the two-fold righteousness or two governments of God: divine righteousness bestowed without merit for the sake of Christ (Gospel) and civil righteousness employed in this world by human reason (Law)” (111 – 12). Wengert illustrates his thesis with a careful examination of Melanchthon’s Scholia on Colossians,1527 and especially its revised form in 1528. 37 See Wengert, Human Freedom, 125. Melanchthon’s Scholia of Colossians defends a “Christian Politics” which is rooted in Scripture, because “philosophers could not connect the authority of the magistracy to the will of God, they did not show the ‘firmest protection’ of magistrates. . . . Instead, they thought states were constituted by human counsel alone.” The most significant contribution to examining Melanchthon’s political thought is found in James M. Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518 – 1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Eastes argues that Melanchthon (in dialogue with Luther) developed an articulation of the divine right of magistrates as magistrates (i. e., not only as Christian magistrates). See also Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and a Christian Politics,” Lutheran Quarterly (Spring 2003):

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Theological Criticisms of Radicalism

3.2

119

A Defense of Philosophy and the Natural Science

For Melanchthon’s defense of the necessary use of philosophy by the theologian, we will examine two orations, On Philosophy (1536) and On Natural Philosophy (1542).38 The content of these orations elaborates on the arguments Melanchthon had previously established against both Erasmus and the radicals. If On the Dignity of Theological Studies is a passionate defense of academic theology, these two orations articulate a zealous defense of the use of “philosophy” by the Church. Defining what Melanchthon meant by philosophy is a contested topic. For our purposes, we can say that, essentially, philosophy is the art of clear thinking; philosophy enables the practitioner to draw logical conclusions and avoid contradictions. Melanchthon defined philosophy less as a review of the historical development of certain schools or a comparison of their conclusions, though we have a few orations where he does just that and outlines what is useful and what is to be avoided in the thought of the Platonists, the Stoics, the Peripatetics, the Cynics, and other schools. More often, he means those disciplines that reveal the nature of the physical world and are constructive for human society : mathematics, physics, astronomy, psychology, linguistics, ethics, and political science.39 Any theologian, Melanchthon says, who thinks he can ignore these disciplines and depend solely on divine revelation for living in this world is a fool. Of course, philosophy cannot save us – since it is utterly incapable of its own to comprehend the grace of God and the Incarnation – nevertheless, we ignore it to our detriment, since it gives comfort to our lives, challenges the mind, and elevates the soul to worship of its maker.40 The radical Reformers were not only heretics in Melanchthon’s eyes, they were animals who chose to live only by the baser impulses. In the face of the Peasant Rebellion and the continued menace of the Anabaptists, Melanchthon redoubled his efforts to open schools

29 – 62; and Ralph Keen, “Defending the Pious: Melanchthon and the Reformation in Albertine Saxony, 1539,” Church History (June 1991): 180 – 95. 38 English translations of On Philosophy (CR 11, 278 – 84) and On Natural Philosophy (CR 11, 555 – 60) from Kusukawa, Orations, 126 – 32 and 133 – 38, respectively. 39 See On Philosophy, 1536 (CR 11, 729). He continued “Altogether the most prevalent in an Illiad of ills is ignorant theology . . . Therefore, the Church has need of many great arts. For in order to judge and explain correctly and distinctly complicated and obscure things, it is not sufficient to know the common precepts of grammar and dialectic, but varied knowledge is needed, for many things are to be taken from natural philosophy, and many are to be contributed to Christian teaching from moral philosophy” (CR 11, 280; Kusukawa, Orations, 128). Finally, the unity of philosophy, theology, and society are reaffirmed (CR 11, 283 – 84; Kusukawa, Orations, 131). 40 In a Dissertatio on Colossians 2:8, 1526 (CR 12, 691 – 96), Melanchthon argued that philosophy is a gift from God and should be treasured. Nonetheless, he reaffirmed these same limits of philosophy. See Wengert, Human Freedom, 82 – 87.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

120

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

where boys (and girls!) would learn to read and write.41 More gifted boys were sent to study Greek and Hebrew, astronomy/mathematics, and physics. Melanchthon saw that hope for society and culture – and most importantly the Church – lay in the education of the youth, instilling within them with a love of learning.42

3.3

Cappadocians as Exemplary Learned Theologians

In the previously mentioned oration, Melanchthon insisted that it was necessary for students to develop a habit of “relating to method everything that they want to understand or teach to others.”43 For Melanchthon, the Cappadocians are pure teachers not only for what they said but also due to the fact that they exemplified these very habits and values: a liberal, classical education and proper use of philosophy in service of orthodox theology. As demonstrated in an earlier chapter, Melanchthon appealed to the Cappadocians in a thematic way, espe41 Lowell Green, “The Education of Women in the Reformation,” History of Education Quarterly 19 (1979): 96. Green offers a translation of a poem by an unnamed girl who was a student at one of the schools in Breslau (most likely St. Elizabeth’s) about the virtue of educating women: “In our time, we are teaching girls to love books, /And the feminine sex to make use of its gifts. They make intellect flow into the arts, beauty into its culture. /Nor let such learned men be men alone. Let sweet girls vie with males. /As I see it, your glory will not be light. Both sexes share the muse by common consent. /I judge them to be less different from you!” The poem was recorded by the pastor, Ambrosius Moibanus. My thanks to Timothy Wengert and Grantley McDonald for tracking down the origin and circumstances of the poem. 42 As the Praeceptor Germaniae, Melanchthon’s contributions to education has been welldocumented. Some of the more recent research includes: Nichole Kuropka, Philipp Melanchthon: Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft: Ein Gelehrter im Dienst der Kirche (1526 – 1532) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Martin Jung, “Pietas und eruditio: Philipp Melanchthon als Religiöser Erzieher der Studenten,” Theologische Zeitschrift 56 (2000): 36 – 49; Günther Wartenberg and Markus Hein, ed., Werk und Rezeption Philipp Melanchthon in Universität und Schule bis ins 18. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlag, 1999); Stefan Rhein and Michael Beyer, ed., Schule und Universität, Philologie, Geschichte, und Politik (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlag, 1997); Heinz Scheible, “Melanchthons Bildungsprogramm,” Melanchthon und die Reformation: Forschungsbeiträge (Mainz: von Zabern, 1996), 99 – 114; Oswald Beyer, “‘Die Kirche Braucht liberale Erudition’: Das Theologieverständnis Melanchthons,” Kerygma und Dogma 36 (1990): 218 – 44; Manfred Fleischer, “Melanchthon as Praeceptor of Late-Humanist Poetry,” Sixteenth Century Journal 20 (1989): 559 – 80; Karl Hartfelder, Philipp Melanchthon als Praeceptor Germaniae (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1964); and Clyde Manschreck, “The Bible in Melanchton’s Philosophy of Education,” Journal of Bible and Religion (July 1955): 202 – 07. 43 On Philosophy, 1536 (CR 11, 281; Kusukawa, Orations, 128).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Theological Criticisms of Radicalism

121

cially with an emphasis on adhering to the particular vocabulary of Church, as well as a “chain of teachers” and the “Church as a school.” Here, however, it is necessary to include the specific references to the appreciation for education, natural philosophy, and theological method demonstrated by the Cappadocians. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen are praised as model students, who traveled to receive an extensive education from the best teachers.44 What is more, Basil and Gregory are quoted for their warnings against ordaining individuals who had not been thoroughly educated.45 Melanchthon also cited Gregory’s reminiscences of the evils to which the youth are susceptible in order to affirm the necessity of discipline (i. e., exposure to proper method) in education.46 Both Basil and Gregory are praised for their eloquence, a gift that came from mastering the particular classical rhetorical forms.47 Basil is praised for his knowledge of natural philosophy (even as Melanchthon criticized Basil’s dismissal of astronomy).48 The Cappadocian who received particular praise in this regard is Gregory of Nyssa. In fact, this is the only time Melanchthon revealed a

44 These references are found in Melanchthon’s letters of recommendation for students. See a recommendation letter for Christoph Camerarius, 13 February 1552 (MBW 6347/CR 7, 943) and a letter of recommendation for Johannes Ferinarius, 24 March 1560 (MBW 9268/CR 9, 1071). See also what appears to be a template for other recommendations, 25 March 1554 (MBW 7130); no CR reference, the letter was published by H. Volz, ARG 31 (1934): 44. References to the education of Basil and Gregory come from Gregory’s Oration 43 §16 (MPG 36, 516). 45 See On the Merit of Studying Theology, 1537 (CR 11, 327; Kusukawa, Orations, 185). A decade later, Melanchthon repeated this warning in a Letter to the Scholarship Commission of the City of Hamburg, 18 November 1547 (MBW 4962/ CR 6,726). 46 In particular, he cited Gregory’s ridicule of the future emperor Julian as a warning to students against over-indulgence in philosophies not guided by the Gospel; see Preface to Arnold Burenius’s Causae cur scholae philosophicae praefecti in Academia Rostochiana in disciplina resarcienda elaborarint, 25 December 1555 (MBW 7670/CR 8, 628 – 32, esp. 631). Melanchthon is citing Gregory’s Oration 5 §23 (MPG 35, 691). 47 Melanchthon praised Basil highly for his eloquence, De Basilio Episcopo, 1545 (CR 11, 683). See also De utilitate studiorum eloquentiae, 1538 (CR 11, 371). Gregory Nazianzen (and his account of Basil’s education) are cited to affirm the use of rhetorical forms (here, depositio) in order to avoid simple but pernicious errors, see MBW 9410/CR 10, 97 – 99. Melanchthon even found ways to make a doctrinal point in a rhetorical illustration, see Erotemata Dialectices, 1537 (CR 13, 621). When demonstrating a “false induction,” he referred to those who might argue (and indeed this was not a purely hypothetical case) that since Athanasius, Ambrose, and Basil were celibate, all bishops should be celibate. To prove the opposite, he referred to the fact that many bishops in the early Church –including Gregory Nazianzen’s father – were married. 48 Initia doctrinae physicae, 1549 (CR 13, 769). In Melanchthon’s commentary on Genesis, in which he reveals knowledge of Basil’s Hexaemeron, he most often cited Basil for affirmations of the Holy Spirit’s activity during creation, see Commentarius in Genesin, 1523 (CR 13, 766, 770, & 769). Melanchthon is also aware of Basil’s Hexaemeron in other writers, especially Ambrose, see De encomio formicarum, 1527 (CR 11, 150).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

122

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

knowledge of one of Gregory’s works, De natura hominis.49 Though modern scholarship now attributes the treatise to Nemesius of Emesa, for Melanchthon it was a shining example of how a theologian did not disdain the natural sciences (i. e., natural philosophy); rather he made use of it in order to come to a greater understanding (and appreciation) of God’s creation.50 In a very limited way, Melanchthon had returned to some of the hagiography he earlier criticized.51 Yet, instead of reciting the miraculous deeds of the Cappadocians from the medieval hagiographies in which they raised the dead and expelled demons, Melanchthon lauded their classical education, by which they explained Scripture and true doctrine to fight the demons of ignorance. In short, the Cappadocians served as models for what a true Christian theologian should be: rooted in the eternal truth of the Gospel and conversant with the science of the times and wisdom of the ages.

4.

Melanchthon against the Anti-Trinitarians

So far, we have discussed Melanchthon’s general defense of academic theology, the role that philosophy necessarily plays in the theological enterprise, and the specific instances of his use of Cappadocian Fathers as models. Now, however, we will turn to more detailed account of Cappadocian references in Melanchthon’s writings against the anti-Trinitarians. With the return ad fontes, some sixteenth-century theologians came to the conclusion that the Christological and Trinitarian affirmations of the first four ecumenical councils were corruptions of the apostolic faith. In particular, the council fathers were charged with having grafted foreign Greek philosophical constructs and vocabulary onto the pure and simple theology of the first apostles. Whereas Melanchthon and the majority of his contemporaries read the orthodox Christology and Trinitarian theology as harmonious with the faith of the first apostles, the anti-Trinitarians saw a radical disconnect between the first three centuries of Christianity and that which came after. In reading the ante49 The work (now more commonly known as De hominis opificio) throughout the Renaissance was attributed to Gregory ; see De hominis opificio (MPG 44, 123 – 255) and De anima (MPG 45, 187 – 222). 50 See Preface to the Commentary on the Soul, 1540 (MBW 2361/CR 3, 907 – 14) also repeated in De anima, 1540 (CR 13, 8; Kusukawa, Orations, 146) and On Natural Philosophy, 1542 (CR 11, 559; Kusukawa, Orations, 136). 51 For a discussion of the stream-lined use of the Fathers, especially concerning more practical matters of education reform and avoiding the elaborate hagiographies, see Markus Wriedt, “Die Autorität der Kirchenväter in der Debatte um die Bildungsreform zu beginn der Reformation,” Auctoritas Patrum II, 261 – 79 and also James Michael Weiss, “Luther and His Colleagues on the Lives of Saints,” Harvard Library Bulletin 33 (1985): 180 – 88.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon against the Anti-Trinitarians

123

Nicene Fathers, the anti-Trinitarians saw far more freedom of theological expression than the later “imperial Church” allowed. Most prominent among the anti-Trinitarians of the sixteenth century were Michael Servetus (1511 – 1553), John Campanus (ca. 1500, d. after 1574), and Francis Stancarus (1501 – 1574). Servetus’s writings were some of the most radical rejections of one of the most basic affirmations of the Christian faith. Servetus began his career as the assistant to Juan de Quintana, a Franciscan friar, Humanist scholar, and confessor to the Emperor Charles V. In 1529, Servetus traveled with Quintana in the imperial retinue through the German territories. There he came into contact with many of the leading Humanists of Europe: Oecolampadius, Capito, and Bucer. While a student at the University of Toulouse, Servetus became suspected of Protestant tendencies. Nevertheless, no one seems to have expected the publication of his most radical rejection of the Trinity. In 1531, he published De trinitatis erroribus, which he followed with Dialogorum de Trinitate and Iustitia Regni Christi a year later. His basic charge is that the pure Christianity of Jesus and his earliest disciples had been corrupted by the grafting of foreign Greek philosophical categories onto the pure Gospel.52 These anti-Trinitarians are grouped with the Anabaptists because they shared a common view of Church history : the pure faith of the Apostles had been corrupted by the imperial Church. Serious historical study, then, necessitated destroying the doctrinal dams erected in the fourth through the sixth century which had reduced the font of true apostolic faith and freedom to a mere trickle. A common theme of the anti-Trinitarians was less “reformation” than “restitution.” These anti-Trinitarians share an affirmation that the Logos in John’s Gospel refers to the Speech (as opposed to Word) of God, that Jesus was adopted by God for his deeds, and that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of the power of God but is not a distinct person. In the section that follows, I will illustrate how Melanchthon countered these affirmations through appeals to the Cappadocian Fathers.

52 These works have been translated into English by Earl Wilber, The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity (Cambridge: Harvard University) 1932. Stancarus asserted (over against Osiander) that Jesus Christ effected salvation only according to his human nature, since it was only the human will that had undergone the necessary change of heart; see Apologia contra Osiandrum, 1551. His work prompted Melanchthon and several leaders of the Reformation to denounce his work as “Nestorian.” See Responsio Philippi Melanthonis de controversiis Strancari, 1553 (CR 23, 87 – 102/MSA 6, 260 – 77) and a letter to Duke August of Saxony, 9 March 1559 (MBW 8886/CR 9, 763). Melanchthon attacked Stancarus for not adhering to the modus loquendi of the Church. He criticized the work as “voll judischer Opinion, und stinket nach Serveto, ist mehr mahommetisch den christlich.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

124 4.1

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

Defense of “Logos” as “Word”

This section resumes the previous discussion of the Refutatio erroris Serveti et Anabaptistarum.53 Here, Melanchthon attacked Servetus directly. He compares Servetus’ ideas to Islam, since he denied the two natures of Christ. This is interesting for two reasons. First, Servetus in fact believed that orthodox Christianity’s insistence upon the Incarnation of the deity and Trinitarian formulation were the unfortunate cause of an unnecessary division between Jews and Muslims. He had hopes that his anti-Trinitarian works would begin an intellectual interfaith reconciliation. Second, Melanchthon is in harmony with scholars of his day by seeing Islam not as a separate religion but rather the outgrowth of an early anti-Trinitarian heretical movement. In addition to Muslims, Melanchthon equates Servetus’s ideas with those of Nestorius, Paul of Samosata, and Photinus.54 4.1.1 Biblical Testimony Melanchthon began his positive formulation of orthodox Christology in a twofold manner. First, he laid out the biblical passages that supported his position. Primarily, this centers on the terms ikon (Colossians 1:15) and especially logos (John 1:1).55 He then marshaled the testimony of tradition to support the interpretation of these passages and their primacy over other passages of Scripture that would seem to contradict them. In the latter appeal to a tradition of biblical interpretation, Melanchthon invoked three authorities: the Creeds (where he 53 MSA 6, 365 – 77. 54 Refutatio erroris Serveti (366 – 67). It should be briefly noted here that Muslims do not deny the virgin birth, but rather deny that the one born of the virgin Mary had both a divine and human nature. On page 368, Melanchthon mentioned Nestorius and Photinus (the deacon to Marcellus of Ancyra condemned at the Council of Sirmium in 351 for declaring the Father and Son as one person and that the Son only became “the Son” at the Incarnation). A similar condemnation (grouping Paul of Samosata, Servetus, Muslims, and Arians) is found in a Disputation from 1554 (CR 12, 612). In 1543, Luther sponsored the publication of a translation of the Qur’an, so that the horrors of the “Turkish menace” might be made more apparent. Luther wrote the preface and Melanchthon penned a “warning to the reader” (MBW 2973/CR 5, 10 – 13). For an English translation and historical introduction, see J. Paul Rajashekar and Timothy J. Wengert, “Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and the Publication of the Qur’an,” Lutheran Quarterly 16 (2002): 221 – 28. Note 6 of the article provides an extensive bibliography of scholarly articles on Luther and Lutheranism on Islam. 55 A more detailed discussion of Melanchthon’s defense of Logos as “word” against the Radical Reformers will follow. I wish to point out here other texts in which Melanchthon cites the Cappadocians in his defense which will not be discussed: Explicatio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 500 – 01); Postilla, ca. 1550 (CR 24, 74; also a discussion of Christ as ikon of God); Postilla, ca. 1550 (CR 25, 18).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon against the Anti-Trinitarians

125

defends the use of technical, non-biblical terms), the writings of particular Fathers, and the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. The last of these was a method often employed by the Fathers themselves. For instance, the full divinity of Christ is proved in the invocation of him in prayers.56 In each case, we can see that he is responding to particular criticisms, as the questions are so specific: logos as “word” and not “speech”; countering the charge “if Christ died, he cannot be God”; and an affirmation of the communication of attributes over against those who would claim either that the man Jesus became Christ (i. e., Adoptionism) or that “the Logos did not exist prior to the Incarnation.” Other biblical citations are to John 1; 1 John 1:1; 1 John 5:7; and Hebrews 1:2 – 14.

4.1.2 The Patristic Testimony Once the biblical foundation for his argument was established, Melanchthon turned to demonstrate the patristic testimony buttressing his biblical affirmations. Melanchthon defended the traditional understanding of Christ as the Logos; a person (prosopon) eternally begotten from the Father. Scripture (i. e., the dicta Prophetica ac Apostolica) speaks clearly on the matter. In addition, this interpretation of Scripture is validated by the testimony of the oldest Church (i. e., vetustae Ecclesiae testimoniis). Specifically, Melanchthon cited Ignatius and Tertullian and then finally to a full quotation of the Creed of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus.57 This discussion of the Logos as Word is important because Servetus and others had argued that Logos should be interpreted instead as speech and therefore, not an existence (i. e., a substance or person) separate from its source (e. g., the Father). It is important to Melanchthon that these three witnesses – especially the latter – are ante-Nicene Fathers. Their testimony proves that the orthodox Christology of the post-Nicene Fathers is not something created in 325 but is in fact the testimony of the Apostles which is illustrated by the scriptores puriores who lived before the Council of Nicaea.58 Gregory’s Creed, in particular, provided the historical trump card in Melanch56 Refutatio erroris Serveti, 367 – 68. 57 A close reading of both Irenaeus and Tertullian was necessitated by the fact that Servetus had cited both Fathers as lacking a strong Trinitarianism. Melanchthon needed to “rehabilitate” both Fathers, as it where and claim them back for the orthodox testimony. Concerning Irenaeus, Melanchthon is citing Irenaeus’ Ad Magnesians (MPG 5, 661 – 74); especially when Irenaeus claimed “the divine prophets lived by Christ, who is the eternal Word of the Father” (ibid., 670). Concerning Gregory, Melanchthon also informs us of his source: “Extat et Gregorii Neocaesariensis confessio, qui vocatus fuit ad cognitionem contra Samosatenum dignissima memoria, quae describit et discernit personas. Extant verba lib. 7. Eusebii.” He concludes his patristic citations with “Haec sunt illustria testimonia laudatorum scriptorum, qui fuerunt ante Nicenam Synodum” (Refutatio erroris Serveti, 369). 58 Refutatio erroris Serveti, 369.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

126

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

thon’s refutation of the radicals’ theological affirmation. It was the bridge on which we could traverse back from the doctrinal formulations of the fourth and fifth centuries to the Apostles. We see the same pattern (i. e., biblical citations; patristic testimony) repeated when Melanchthon discussed the pre-existence of the Logos. He cite a host of biblical passages: John 1:10; John 5:17; John 5:21; John 8:58; John 17:24; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Colossians 1:16; Micah 5:2; Genesis 48:16; and Job 19:25. He then asserted the eternal union of the two natures in the one person of Christ with the following biblical passages: Hebrews 1:2; Matthew 11:27; Jeremiah 23:6; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6; Psalm 45:12; and Psalm 72:17. He then concluded that the “the two titles of the Son, ‘Image’ and ‘Logos,’ are the manifest testimony of both John and Paul, and these declarations have been received, considered, and handed down by the ancient writers with faithfulness and reverence without quibbling.”59 Therefore, his opponents should embrace the language of the Creeds, with their technical terms of hypostasis and homoousia, as faithful witnesses to Scripture; for the Creed not only illumines the scriptural understanding of logos and image, but the ancient writers confirm both Scripture and the Creeds, “among them Basil, Nazianzen, Augustine, and many others.”60 From here, the witness of Gregory Nazianzen took center stage: And Nazianzen adds this: the Son is called logos, because he is a person who directly brings forth the Gospel from the bosom of the eternal Father, who is speaking to the fathers, who preserves the ministry of the Gospel, and he is directly efficacious in it [i.e., the Gospel]. Through this one [i.e., Christ], making the Father known, as Christ says: ‘No one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him’ [Matthew 11:27]. And from this, he provides this most pleasing argument: The Son bears forth the Gospel from the bosom of the eternal Father from the beginning, and makes the Father known. He is the same son before the Incarnation. Therefore, this same Son existed before the assumption of human nature. In the declarations, Nazianzen employs the following statement: He is called Logos . . . this declaration is clearer than any other and is very pleasing. Indeed, some certain signification of these words is to be understood [certa vocabulorum significatio] and nevertheless the Son ought to be discerned, who is the logos hypistomenos, and the image of the eternal Father and this testimony has been externally expressed, and upon which our contemplation is eternally necessary.61 59 Refutatio erroris Serveti, 372. 60 Refutatio erroris Serveti, 372. 61 Refutatio erroris Serveti, 372 – 73. The insistence on the external revelation of the Son is directed against Schwenckfeld and others, who denied that the Son (or Holy Spirit) mediates grace through external means.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon against the Anti-Trinitarians

127

These quotations are from the Fourth Theological Oration of Gregory.62 Though Melanchthon quoted a Latin translation in this treatise, his other works from around this time offer the quotation in Greek.63 Furthermore, in other works against Servetus, Melanchthon is also fond of quoting another passage, this time from Gregory’s Fifth Theological Oration: “Now we have seen and proclaim concisely and simply the doctrine of God the Trinity, comprehending out of light [the Father], light [the Son], and in light [the Holy Spirit].”64 Melanchthon has packed many things into this argument, things that he does not elaborate for the reader, yet things that the attentive reader cannot miss. In the two paragraphs in which he cited Gregory Nazianzen, he has struck a blow against the affirmations of the anti-Trinitarians. Christ is eternally begotten from the very bosom of the Father ; this Logos – Christ Jesus – not only existed before taking up human flesh but also truly assumed human nature; this Logos has spoken through the prophets and apostles; he continues to preserve the teaching of the Church; and finally He is truly efficacious in the ministry of the Church (both in Word and Sacrament) by making the Father known to all who partake in the life of the Church. 62 Oration 30, 20 (Fourth Theological Oration) (MPG 36, 129, CPG §3010). Melanchthon’s quotations of passages from the orations is loose: sometimes word for word and sometimes paraphrasing summaries. 63 I have found this quotation from the Fourth Theological Oration five other times: The most extensive quotation is in Disputatio 66, dated 1554 (CR 12, 610 & 622) which has a block quotation from the oration in Greek. Other references with shorter passages in Greek are in: Explicatio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 501); Questiones Academicae, 5 March 1555 (on the proper invocation of God) (CR 12, 849); Declamatio de Gregorio Nazianzeno, 20 February 1558 (CR 12, 283); Questiones Academicae, 1559 (on why the Son is called the Logos; Basil mentioned as well) (CR 12, 882); Postilla Melancththonis, n.d. (CR 25, 18). All of these quotations are in works composed after the 1550s. This would indicate that Melanchthon was using the first Opera omnia, published in Basel, 1550 (though, as we have seen before, Melanchthon was familiar with the Five Theological Orations in Latin as early as 1519). This underlines Fraenkel’s affirmation that Melanchthon updated his patristic references to the newest editions available, see Fraenkel, Testimonia, 24, n. 70. 64 Oration 31, 3 (Fifth Theological Oration) (MPG 36, 136, CPG §3010). The English translation above is by Charles Gordon Brown and James Edward Swallow, trans., “The Theological Orations,” Christology of the Later Fathers, ed. Edward R. Hardy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1954), 195. I have found the quotation three other times in Melanchthon’s works. See his letter to Calvin on 14 October 1554 (MBW 7306/CR 8, 362) in which he claims this is one of clearest expressions of the nature of God in all of Gregory’s work. In two other letters, Melanchthon is addressing questions (which resulted from Andreas Osiander’s affirmation that Christ dwells in the heart of the justified) over whether the Holy Spirit and/or all three persons of the Trinity also reside in the soul of the justified sinner. Melanchthon clarified the unity and distinction of persons in the Trinity by citing Sts. Athanasius, Augustine, and Gregory ; see Letter to Victorin Stringel, 31 August 1552 (MBW 6543/CR 7, 1057) and Letter to John Aurifaber and David Chytraeus, 10 September 1552 (MBW 6558/CR 7, 1068). Each time, the quotation from Gregory is given in Greek.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

128

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

It is important to notice that his presentation of material is a straightforward application of the loci method.65 There is very little argumentation. A topic is chosen and a thesis is presented. Then, the articles unfold with a quantitative accumulation of the best authors. For Melanchthon, the task here is perhaps made easier, for instead of justifying a novel approach, he is demonstrating both the historical transmission of orthodox theology and noting that the “new” theology of the anti-Trinitarians is little more than the warmed-over heresies of yesterday. The paucity of elaboration here is also a rhetorical device: to argue too much would weaken the self-evident authority of the texts and authors one is citing. Melanchthon concludes this treatise by asserting that he has shown from the ancient Church and historical sources the certainty and good judgment of orthodox faith over against the radicals who have added to the tradition and thereby disseminate confusion by repeating the errors of Eutyches.66 Melanchthon’s earliest treatises were short polemics, dealing mainly with the social and political effects of the theological affirmations of the Anabaptists. These texts were addressed mainly for a non-academic audience. We see more pointed and sophisticated arguments made in the three orations defending a liberal theological education as well as his last treatise against the radicals. The Cappadocians in particular are not only held up as pure models of well-educated and orthodox ecclesiastical leaders but Melanchthon continually appealed to their authority and clarity of argument in his own defense of orthodox Christology and Trinitarian thought. The remainder of this chapter will provide examples of use of the Cappadocians against the Radicals that are found throughout Melanchthon’s works. To make this task more manageable, I have arranged these citations thematically. First, I will discuss the inclusion and subsequent expansion of the topics God, Christ, Trinity, and Holy Spirit in the editions of the Loci Communes after 1521. Then, I will conclude by showing how thorough is Melanchthon’s appeal to the Cappadocians when and wherever certain themes related to the Radicals appear in his works.

65 See Quirinus Breen, “The Terms ‘Loci Communes’ and ‘Loci’ in Melanchthon,” Church History 16 (December 1947): 197 – 209. He places Melanchthon’s use of the loci method within the context of the Aristotlean and especially Ciceronian classical tradition and their medieval receptions. Breen points us to Melanchthon’s own definition of the loci method and its purpose, see Erotemata Dialectica, 1527 (CR 13, 659): “A dialectical locus is a sedes argumenti, or rather, an index pointing out where is the source whence the material is to be drawn by which a proposition in question is to be confirmed; so that, if you should seek confirmation of this proposition: Glory is to be sought, some source is to be pointed out whence the confirmation is to be drawn” (English translation from Breen, ibid., 205). 66 Refutatio, 375.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Cappadocian References to Christological and Trinitarian Doctrines

129

5.

Cappadocian References to Christological and Trinitarian Doctrines in Didactic Works

5.1

Augmented Sections in Subsequent Editions of the Loci Communes

As a young man, Melanchthon famously stated that “we do better to adore the mysteries of the Deity than to investigate them.”67 He reflected here an apophatic approach to theology, one that resonates with Cappadocian theology. I would argue that this statement – along with appeals to silence in face of other controversial matters (such as predestination, the relation between the redeemed human will and divine grace, and the exact mode of Christ’s Eucharistic presence) – cautions against the scholars who argue, contradictorily, that Melanchthon is both the father hyper-rationalism within Lutheranism or that he was pusillanimous on the most controversial questions. When Melanchthon pursued a rational understanding of revelation while urging awe-filled silence in the face of the divine mysteries and a heart that gladly receives the divine presence in the liturgical celebrations of the sacraments, he is following the example of other theologians: Augustine, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Thomas Aquinas, and his colleague Martin Luther. This approach to theology is not anti-intellectual but at the same time it is not founded on rationalism.68 Melanchthon made use of the classical Greek terms to distinguish between “intellectual curiosity” (peqieqc_a), which is to be encouraged and idle speculation, the pursuit of activities for which one has neither competency nor permission (pokupqaclos}vg ; literally, “meddlesomeness”).69 In claiming that it was better to adore the mysteries of God than to investigate them, Melanchthon had in mind Scholastic speculation. His early works only briefly discussed Christology and the Trinity. In 1521, he argued first that the loci method pro67 CR 21, 84: “Mysteria divinitatis rectius adoraverimus, quam vestigaverimus.” English translation in Wilhelm Pauck, ed., Melanchthon and Bucer (Philadelphia: Westminister, 1969), 21. 68 For but two examples, Basil wrote “The Magi adore, while Christians argue,” Homily 321.6 (Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem, MPG 31, 1457 – 76). For a discussion of this principle in St. Basil, see Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley : University of California Press, 1998) 127 – 29. See also Nazianzen “God governs all men of good will, but keeps the heights of his wisdom still hidden and opaque darkness is between our race and God which few can ever penetrate,” Carmen 2.1.45 (MPG 37: 1367). As much as Melanchthon agrees with this apophatic approach, however, he would not have approved of the direction Gregory of Nyssa (e. g., the Life of Moses) and Dionysius took with apophatic theology. He would have most likely dismissed their efforts as excessive mysticism. 69 See Didymi Faventini adversus Thomam Placentinum pro Martino Luthero theologo oratio, 1521 (MSA 1, 74/CR 1, 287 – 358); De studiis adolescentum, 1529 (CR 11, 181); Nova Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis, 1529 (MSA 4, 466); Letter to Prince Ernest, 1537 (MBW 3427/CR 3, 629); and Loci communes, 1559 [1543] (MSA 2, 306 & 722).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

130

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

vided an introduction to the Scriptures, not an extended commentary upon them. This then, secondly, allowed the clear word of Scripture to be heard. As an introduction to Scripture, Melanchthon does not wish to burden nor distract his readers with unnecessary scholastic distinctions, categories, and definitions: Just as some of [the main topics of Christianity] are altogether incomprehensible, so there are others which Christ has willed the universal body of Christians to know with great certainty. . . . What is more, these matters cannot be probed without great danger, and even holy men have often experienced this. . . . Therefore, there is no reason why we should labor so much on those exalted topics such as ‘God,’ ‘The Unity and Trinity of God,’ ‘The Mystery of Creation,’ and ‘The Manner of the Incarnation.’ . . . . But as for the one who is ignorant of the other fundamentals, namely, ‘The Power of Sin,’ ‘The Law,’ and ‘Grace,’ I do not see how I can call him a Christian. For from these things Christ is known, since to know Christ is to know his benefits and not as [the Scholastics] teach, to reflect upon his natures and the modes of his incarnation. For unless you know why Christ put on flesh and was nailed to the cross, what good will it do you to know merely the history about him? Would you say that it is enough for a physician to know the shapes, colors, and contours of plants, and that it makes no difference whether he knows their innate power? . . . . It is therefore proper that we know Christ in another way than that which the Scholastics have set forth.70

Melanchthon, then, thinks that he can focus only on making our sinful nature known, and in turn, the love and grace with which God responded to us in Christ; not as we deserve but according to God’s will. The reader must understand this first. Then and only then may he be prepared for the discussion of more subtle and mysterious questions; questions profound but not necessary for salvation. Therefore, such sections as God, the triune and unified nature of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the distinction between generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit are omitted from the 1521 edition. The necessity of a change in both the tone and substance of Melanchthon’s didactic works (in which the core doctrines of the Evangelical faith are summarized) can be quickly demonstrated by referencing the Augsburg Confession. In this document, Melanchthon and his colleagues were content to articulate a clear and concise affirmation of the Nicene Creed and condemn those whom the Creed condemns; namely, the Manichees who “posit two gods”; the Valentinians; the Arians; the Eunomians; the Mohammedans; and finally the Samosatenians “old and new, who hold that there is only one person and create a deceitful sophistry about the other two, the Word and the Holy Spirit, by saying that the two need not be two distinct persons since ‘Word’ means an external word or voice and the ‘Holy Spirit’ is a created motion in all creatures.”71 Here, given the date of composition, the reference to the “New Samosatenians” is not to 70 CR 21, 84 – 85; Loci, 1521, 21 – 22. 71 BSLK, 51; BC, 37.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Cappadocian References to Christological and Trinitarian Doctrines

131

Servetus but to John Campanus. Still, Melanchthon did not need a defense of the Nicene doctrine because it was not a source of controversy between Lutherans and the audience to whom this document is addressed: the Roman Catholic estates and the Holy Roman Emperor. However, in years after 1530, as the antiTrinitarian arguments grow in sophistication and fervor, Melanchthon had no choice but to engage their arguments more substantially in even the most basic doctrinal works. This change can be documented by examining the subsequent editions of the Loci communes in 1535, 1543, and 1553.72 In response to the criticism that the creedal formulations were unbiblical, Melanchthon found it necessary to include these discussions in later editions of this introduction to the Scripture.73 The Loci of 1521 includes only one reference to a Cappadocian; which is a positive reference to the monastic practices of private confession found in Rufinus’ translation of St. Basil’s Rule. There are added references to the Cappadocian Fathers in published lectures on the Loci (1533), upon which the 1535 edition of the Loci was based. In 1533, Servetus is mentioned for the first time and equated with Paul of Samosata.74 In the 1535 edition, Basil is mentioned twice and Nazianzen is mentioned three times. The claim that Servetus is the “New Paul of Samosata” is repeated. By the 1543 edition, however, there are now eight citations of Basil, and three citations of Gregory Nazianzen. Most striking is the fact that three references to Gregory Thaumaturgus are added in connection to his defeat of Paul of 72 This expansion can be most easily demonstrated by comparing the chapter headings of the first and last Latin edition of the Loci communes: Loci, 1521: I. Introduction; II. The Human Person and Free Will; III. Sin; IV. The Law; V. The Gospel; VI. On Grace; VII. Justification and Faith; VIII. Distinction Between the Old and New Testament; IX. The Sacraments; X. Love; XI. Civil Magistrates; XII. On Offense (De scandalo). Loci, 1543: I. Preface; II. On God, subsections on the Trinity, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; III. On Creation; IV. Cause of Sin; V. The Human Person and Free Will; VI. Sin; VII. Divine Law with subsections on the Ten Commandments, Natural Law, and uses of the Law; VIII. The Gospel; IX. Grace and Justification; X. Good Works; XI. The Difference between the Old and New Testament; XII. The Difference between Mortal and Venial Sin; XIII. The Church; XIV. The Sacraments; XV. Predestination; XVI. The Kingdom of Christ; XVII. The Resurrection of the Dead; XVIII. The Spirit and the Letter ; XIX. Calamities, the Cross, and True Consolations; XX. The Invocation of God; XXI. Civil Rulers; XXII. Human Ceremonies in the Church; XXIII. The Mortification of the Flesh; XXIV. Offense; XXV. Christian Liberty ; Appendix: On Marriage. 73 According to Fraenkel, “The great difference between the first and second edition of the Loci and the last in the inclusion of how post-canonical ‘testimonia’ – under the chapters De Ecclesia and De Signis Monstrantibus Ecclesiam – are to be used in theology and how they are related to those taken from Scripture. . . . Very probably, the introduction of this theme is due to the controversies of 1540 and 1541 and . . . during the great colloquies where he discussed [this topic] most. But, there can be no doubt he held [these opinions] much earlier” (Testimonia, 41). 74 Loci communes, 1533 (CR 21, 261 – 3).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

132

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

Samosata at the Synod of Antioch. Melanchthon binds Servetus to the condemnations against Paul of Samosata. Therefore, if the old Paul of Samosata was defeated by the orthodoxy of Gregory’s Creed, so too may the “New Paul of Samosata” be crushed by adhering to the old faith. As we examine these Cappadocian references, it is important to note the growing emphatic claim that we must listen and adhere to the specific theological grammar of the Church as found in the creeds concerning the definition of logos, persona, ousia, homoousia, and hypostasis, as well as the two natures and the communication of attributes in the person of Christ. 5.1.1 The Loci Communes, 1535 In the 1535 edition of the Loci, there are two augmentations that concern us here. Melanchthon has added a section entitled “On the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity.” Here he cited both Nazianzen and Basil. The first augmentation concerns key theological terms. He writes: Nazianzen wrote of ‘hypostasis’ which we in Latin understand to be ‘person,’ yet there is no acceptable word in Greek, for prosopa was misused by the heretics and thus hypostases is more acceptable. Thus, there are three divine persons, boundless, coeternal, homoousioi; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. According to John, the Son who was sent is called Word [logos].75

This reference is interesting for two reasons. First, it establishes and justifies the use of controversial (i. e., creedal but not biblical) terms in discussing the Trinity : person/prosopon, hypostasis, and homoousia. This indicates that one should understand these terms as the Fathers did; therefore, any attempt to read “speech” instead of “word” for Logos is rebuffed (note too the controversial words are given in Greek). Second, Melanchthon showed historical and linguistic sophistication in his awareness that the Latin use of persona is both most directly associated with the Greek prosopon and that this association is a matter requiring theological sensitivity. In the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century, the Greek-speaking church struggled with prosopon which, like persona, was a word originally associated with the theater as a mask worn by actors to convey a different character.76 This mental image formed by the word “mask” 75 Loci, 1535 (CR 21, 354). 76 The sixteenth-century revival of linguistic studies and the subsequent struggle to affirm appropriate language on the Trinity mirrors the fourth-century struggle to find appropriate terminology. Basil Studer writes “The development that Nicea had initiated by introducing into the common creed a terminology which went beyond biblical language had to be brought to a comprehensive conclusion for trinitarian as well as christological doctrine. How complicated the course of this whole linguistic ruling was, is very clear from the fact that dogmatic accord had to be fixed in two (or even more) languages. So the meaning of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Cappadocian References to Christological and Trinitarian Doctrines

133

was used by some to affirm a Modalistic understanding of God – exactly the concept Melanchthon is now fighting: In this disputation the Fathers of the Church call a “person” not what at other times in the Latin language or in the theater signifies a particular appearance, or a distinction of role, as when we say Roscius might play at one time the character [persona] Ajax, at another time the character [persona] Ulysses, at one time the character [persona] of a king, at another time that of a slave. Rather, the meaning of person in these ecclesiastical disputations is used to mean an individual substance, intelligent and incommunicable.77

Of course, the linguistic differences between Latin and Greek were not discovered in the sixteenth century. St. Augustine’s On the Trinity – a common text throughout the Middle Ages – mentions this difficulty.78 Yet, we can say that due to the revival of Greek philology and literature in the Renaissance Melanchthon and his colleagues were more sophisticated in their understanding of these linguistic differences. This was a mixed blessing: the common improvement in philological skills reopened many settled linguistic disputes. Nevertheless, Melanchthon adheres to the creedal language and affirms the traditional understanding of that terminology. The second augmentation of the Loci 1535 edition occurs just two pages later in the same section. This time, Melanchthon is concerned with both the distinction of persons as well as the unity of the Godhead. He cites St. Basil. Therein, he defends both the distinction of the Holy Spirit (from the Father and Son) as

homoousios does not coincide with that of its Latin translation unius substantiae (or essentiae). It was even more difficult to take hypostasis or even prosopon as equivalent to persona. A sense of language was required here and, what is more, tolerance, which all did not possess in the same measure,” Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church, trans. Matthias Westerhoff (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993), 113. Other sixteenth-century scholars were aware of this issue, as is reflected in their articulations of the Trinity. See Irena Backus, “Influence of Some Patristic Notions of Substantia et Essentia on the Trinitarian Theology of Brenz and Bucer (1528),” Theologische Zeitschrift 37 (March/April 1981): 65 – 70. 77 Loci, 1535 (CR 21, 353). An abbreviated version of the same is found in the 1533 edition (CR 21, 258). The last line, which clarifies the definition of ‘person,’ is in line with the mediaeval tradition of interpreting Boethius’ clarification that “persona est rationalibis naturae individua substantia,” On the Person and Two Natures in Christ. 78 St. Augustine wrote in Book Seven, Chapter Three, Section Eleven: “So for God to be is the same as to subsist, and therefore if the trinity is one being, it is also one substance. Perhaps then it is more correct to say three persons than three substances. But we must inquire further into this, in case it looks like special pleading for our own usage against that of the Greeks (as a matter of fact, if they like, they could also say three persons, tria prosopa, just as they say three substances, treis hypostaseis. But they prefer this latter expression, because I imagine it fits the usage of their language better,” from the English translation of Edmund Hill, The Trinity (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1991), 228.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

134

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

well as the Spirit as “one in being” (homoousia) with the Father and Son, and turns to St. Basil: On what account does the name Holy Spirit signify a distinct person? For if the Spirit were to signify merely the very same Father who sends [the Spirit] forth, he would be called ‘the Father’ twice, and that would be an idle tautology. In this sentence [referring to Matthew 28:19 – 20] Basil discerns with greater prudence and authority from this saying of Christ that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousioi: On the one hand, we ought to be baptized as we have been taught, to believe as we have been baptized, and to give praise as we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.79

Here, Melanchthon cites Basil’s Letter 125 to Eustathius of Sabaste in Greek.80 It is likely that he knows the quotation from the 1532 Erasmus edition of Basil. Melanchthon uses this one quotation to make two points: the Holy Spirit must be a distinct person from the Father ; if not, he argues, the Church would not be making any sense when it speaks of the Father sending and pouring out the Spirit. Again, the rules of grammar dictate that two separate beings are being signified. This runs counter to the Modalistic understandings of God affirmed by Servetus and others. The second point Melanchthon wishes to make is much closer to Basil’s own affirmation in On the Holy Spirit. If we baptize in the Triune Name, as is commanded by Christ (Matthew 28:19 – 20), then we must affirm the faith in which we are baptized. That is, since we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we must affirm that three distinct persons are active. Further, since the three persons of the Trinity are active in our baptism – through which we receive salvation and glorification – then there can be no gradation of powers among the persons. Each acts in union with the other ; and each individual divine person redeems and sanctifies in the sacramental action. Melanchthon affirmed that the ancient practice of the Church’s liturgy of baptism guides our reading of Scripture concerning both the unity and distinction of persons in the Trinity ; they are not merely modes through which we perceive the one being.81

79 CR 21, 356 (Loci, 1535). 80 See Ep. 125, 3 (PG 32, 549B), where we find the quotation word for word. Meijering is unaware of this source and suggests that the quotation is a paraphrase of Liber de spiritu sancto 68 (MPG 32, 193); see Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic Thought, 44. There are other places where Basil emphasized the same point, especially in On the Holy Spirit, 10, 26 and 12, 28 (MPG 31, 113 & 117) and the conclusions of the Synod of Iconium, 376; see Epistola Synodica Amphilocii 3, 4 (MPG 39, 96C-97B). This conclusion is confirmed by the repetition of this quotation in the Enarratio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 235), in which Melanchthon referred to finding this quotation “in some letter.” 81 In two later commentaries on the Nicene Creed, Melanchthon (with Caspar Cruciger) makes the same reference (note also the reference to Gregory Thaumaturgus’s Creed); Enarratio

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Cappadocian References to Christological and Trinitarian Doctrines

135

5.1.2 The Loci Communes, 1543 In the 1543 edition of the Loci, the sections dealing with Christological and Trinitarian questions are expanded again. First, in the section entitled “On the Son,” we find again the previously mentioned defense of the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, through the same reference to St. Basil, though the introductory sentences are slightly revised: Since these words openly profess the Father to be God, to be omnipotent, to be invoked, and since to this fellowship of honors are added the Son and Holy Spirit, they necessarily have an equal share in power. With an equal share in power, they are homoousioi. Moreover, the Father and the Christ the Son remain distinct persons; and for that reason the name Holy Spirit signifies a distinct person. For if the name Holy Spirit were to signify the very same Father who sends forth or causes things to be moved, he would be called ‘the Father’ twice, and that would be an idle tautology. Basil reasons to this conclusion with greater prudence and authority from this saying of Christ that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousioi: ‘We ought to be baptized as we have been taught, to believe as we are baptized, and to give praise as we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.’82

As in the previous edition of the Loci, Melanchthon reaffirmed the technical vocabulary and the appealed to the baptismal liturgy to understand the Trinity. The first addition to the Loci of 1543 edition that concerns us is the Creed of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus as proof of the ante-Nicene orthodoxy concerning the meaning of logos and the Trinity.83 In the section, “On the Trinity,” Melanchthon began by stating that a “fanatical man, Servetus, has been playing games with the word person” and “deceitfully twisted” the ancient ecclesiastical use of the term. The historical context of the Servetus’s errors is set into the ancient history of the Church. When Paul of Samosata began to disturb the Church with his denial of the pre-existent Logos, the “old bishops” who had been “taught by the apostles” gathered to refute and expel Paul from the Church. Chief among them was Gregory Thaumaturgus. Melanchthon equated Paul of Samosata’s teaching with Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 232, 234 – 5). And again, a few years later, the same appears almost verbatim, Explicatio Symbolo Niceni, 1557 (CR 23, 380). 82 Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 617). 83 In addition to the references here, Melanchthon appealed to the Creed as an example of preNicene orthodoxy on at least ten other occasions: Letter to the Senate of Venice, 1539 (MBW 2135 [T8, 287]/CR 3, 749); the dedicatory letter for the German translation of Caspar Hedio’s Chronicon, addressed to Duke Ruprecht, January 1539 (MBW 2138 [T8, 294]/CR 3, 879); Letter to Cranmer, 1549 (MBW 5466/CR 7, 348); Letter to Prince Albert, Preface to Luther’s Works, 1549 (MBW 5515/CR 7, 391); Letter to Archbishop Sigismund of Magdeburg, Preface to the Chronicon Carionis, April 1558 (MBW 8598/CR 9, 531 – 38); Enarratio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 220); Explicatio Symboli Niceni, 1557/1561 (three times: CR 23, 363, 380 & 527); Refutatio erroris Serveti et Anabaptistarum, late 1550’s (MSA 6, 369); and Responsio ad criminationes Staphyli, 1558 (MSA 6, 465).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

136

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

those of Michael Servetus.84 Servetus shared Paul of Samosata’s concern to protect the monotheism of Christianity, which he thought had been destroyed by later Christological and Trinitarian formulas. Further, he emphasized the full humanity of Jesus with whom the Word of God was present. Servetus’s Christology (after a prolonged study of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Ignatius of Antioch, whose works were all available in the early 1500s in Latin from the Basel press) vacillated between adoptionism, modalism, and Arianism (since he denied that the Logos was co-eternal with God). Rather than committing to one particular formula, however, Servetus was more concerned to emphasize that which we do not know; and when we do not know we must be silent and worship – a motto Melanchthon himself had repeated concerning other theological loci. Yet, on the Trinity – the very nature of the Godhead – and the economy of salvation, Melanchthon argued that silence would mute the proclamation of the Deus pro nobis. Thus, Melanchthon’s understanding of history is again apparent. He believed that he was able to easily refute the “new Paul of Samosata” by citing the testimony against the ancient heretic: Gregory, an aged bishop of Neoceasarea, came to the same conclusion [against Paul of Samosata]. The church of his day judged his doctrine to be most pure. He has left his written confession long before the Council of Nicaea.85

Melanchthon then quoted the entire Creed for his readers, even providing the exact citation (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 7, page 173). The key aspect of Gregory’s Creed is not only its antiquity but also its reference to ikon (here, imago Patris) to describe the Logos; the same yet distinct. Whereas Servetus examined the patristic testimony and found it full of ambiguous diversity concerning the nature of the Logos, Melanchthon examined the patristic testimony and pointed the clear and consistent voice of orthodoxy above the din. The importance of Gregory’s Creed is underscored throughout the Loci of 1543. This quotation, from the section “On the Church,” reveals Melanchthon’s understanding of the relationship between the clarity of Scripture and the authority of the Church: The judge was the Word of God, that is, testimonies brought from the Gospel in good faith and without sophistry which convinced all but a prejudiced judge; but still also the 84 An exact parallel of the thoughts of the two men is difficult to establish. Paul of Samosata is remembered most for his role in the Christological controversies of the third century, but his exact theology on the subject is not clear. The consensus is that Paul emphasized a “Christology from below,” rejected the Son’s preexistence, and stressed Christ’s ordinary manhood in both body and soul. For Paul, Jesus was a man who became God; the Word was joined to Jesus but was not “made flesh.” Paul’s desire to protect Christianity’s affirmation of radical monotheism helped contribute to the Monarchianist view of God, which tried to mitigate the Logos theology of John’s Gospel. 85 Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 620 – 21; Preus, Loci, 24).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Cappadocian References to Christological and Trinitarian Doctrines

137

weak were then greatly aided in expressing themselves by the confession of the stronger, namely, those of whom it was clear that they had been faithful guardians of doctrine, such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Gregory Neocaesarea [Thaumaturgus]. Their disciples [in turn] had heard from them that the Logos indicated a person. Later, they themselves, after comparing statements of the Gospel, acknowledged that this was the natural meaning [of the statement] which they had heard [from their teachers].86

The last two quotations refer to a fact previously discussed: Melanchthon’s perception is that the pure word of the Gospel concerning Christ and the Trinity (which included an understanding of logos as a pre-existing Word; the two natures of Christ; and the consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit to the Father) was taught from the beginning. The Apostles “testified” to this understanding of Scripture and this testimony was “heard” by their disciples. Yet, soon after, some began to preach a different gospel, distorting the apostolic testimony. Therefore, according to Melanchthon, the Fathers were moved to counter their heresy with more articulated written testimony. Finally, things reached such a horrible state that the Fathers at Nicaea had to put down explicitly the vocabulary already used and understood in the Church. Though these terms are not found in Scripture, they conform to the Gospel since they conform to the “rule of faith” or sense of the Apostles. This is the same point Melanchthon would make later in Refutatio erroris Serveti et Anabaptistarum, discussed earlier.87 5.1.3 Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere, 1553 In examining subsequent primary dogmatic treatises, the reader notes the conspicuous absence of Cappadocian references on Christological and Trinitarian references, notably the Confessio Saxonica (1551)88 and the Examen Ordinandorum (1552, 1554 and 1559).89 I argue that these texts, while very critical of the radicals and including detailed sections on the Trinity and Christology, do not specify mention the Cappadocians because the audience for these books are simple Christians, not academics. Therefore, Melanchthon’s appeal to their 86 87 88 89

CR 21, 836; see Preus, Loci, 133. Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 622; Preus, Loci, 24). CR 28, 415/MSA 6, 127. The 1552 German edition of the Examen is found in CR 23, XXXV – CX. The 1559 Latin edition is found in CR 23, 1 – 87. The German edition mentions no patristic sources. The Latin is far more detailed, including such questions as “What is God?”, “What is a Person?”, “How Can they be Discerned?”, and “What is the Difference between Generation and Procession?”. Use of technical terms is defended, and many of the arguments presented above are repeated, but without citation of the Cappadocians. He concludes, however, with an invective that the Anabaptists revive ancient heresies. Compare this to his earliest treatise, Against the Anabaptists, 1528, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

138

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

authority on these questions remains implicit. I believe this thesis is confirmed when we examine the German edition of the Loci communes from 1553, the Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere.90 Writing for a non-academic audience in German, Melanchthon again stressed the patristic testimony of the ecumenical creeds, even in a more streamlined version. When beginning the section on the Trinity, Melanchthon revealed who his target still was: Servetus and all the ancient heretics with whom he shared an opinion (all of whom had “Jewish” opinions about the Messiah).91 Then, after outlining the biblical testimony, Melanchthon cited only five patristic authorities who had shown themselves “true students of the Apostles”: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Ireanaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Tertullian, and Epiphanius.92 Again, the emphasis is on the Creed of Gregory (which is cited in full). Three things stand out about his patristic authorities in reference to the Trinity. First, four of the five authorities Melanchthon cited precede the Council of Nicaea (and two of which – Irenaeus and Tertullian – Servetus had used as his own authorities). Second, the quotation from Eusebius is actually known to Melanchthon through Basil’s On the Holy Spirit.93 Third, the other Cappadocian references to the Trinity to not appear in this section. Melanchthon concluded, “many godly men after the Council of Nicaea – Basil, [Gregory] Nazianzen, Epiphanius – have written lengthy works sufficiently explaining [these points]. Here, I will only cite a quotation from Epiphanius.”94 Later, Melanchthon’s oft repeated citation of Gregory Nazianzen’s Fifth Theological Oration, appears but under the loci on Sin and Law.95

90 See Philipp Melanchthon, Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere: Melanchthons deutsche Fassung seiner Loci theologici, nach dem Autograph und dem Originaldruck von 1553, ed. Ralf Jenett and Johannes Schilling (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002). 91 Heubtartikel, 94. 92 Heubtartikel, 113 – 15. Note the emphasis again on “apostolic teaching” (esp. 113). 93 Heubtartikel, 115. See Basil, On the Holy Spirit, §72 (PG 32, 204; CPG §2839). In marshaling his own testimony of authorities concerning the invocation of the Holy Spirit, Basil wrote “For those who accept the authority of Eusebius of Caesarea on account of his extensive history, allow me to refer to his discussion of polygamy among the ancients. In his preface to this work, he invokes ‘the Holy God of the prophets, the Giver of Light, through our Savior Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit.’” English translation, Saint Basil, On the Holy Spirit, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2001), 108 – 09. 94 Heubtartikel, 115. He cited a passage from Epiphanius’s Panarion, §72, 11 (PG 42, 496; CPG ’3745), stating that the Holy Spirit is of one being with Father and Son. 95 Oration 31, 3 (Fifth Theological Oration) (MPG 36, 136; CPG §3010). The quotation appears as a response to the question “Why must one hold to the exclusive formulas sola fide or gratis?” Melanchthon cited Gregory as an example of exactly the kind of faith the Devil does not possess (that is, the Devil may possess historical faith but not justifying faith). See Heubtartikel, 273.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Defense of Christological and Trinitarian Formulations in Other Works

6.

139

Defense of Christological and Trinitarian Formulations in Other Works

In the space remaining, I wish to show that the quotations shown above were added to other didactic texts as well, and become a common trope in Melanchthon’s later writings. This method has already been employed by E. P. Meijering. I do not wish to unnecessarily reiterate his work. Therefore, I will only make brief comments and add further discussion when warranted.

6.1

On the Divinity of the Holy Spirit Proven through Baptism

As we have seen in the previous section of this chapter, Melanchthon repeatedly turned to Basil in order to affirm that baptismal liturgy of the Church which it performs at the command of Christ proves the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. I wish to point out here that, since Melanchthon read Basil’s On the Holy Spirit, we can assume that Melanchthon was also aware of the times that Basil cited Gregory Thaumaturgus as a witness to the apostolic faith concerning the Trinity. This could only have girded Melanchthon’s understanding of a “chain of pure teachers.” A few examples will suffice. First, Melanchthon said “Basil collected the testimony of many, whose authority was eminent in the Church.”96 In section 74 of On the Holy Spirit, Basil claimed to have received the Trinitarian doxology from Gregory Thaumaturgus: Where shall we rank Gregory the Great and his words? Shall we not number with the apostles and prophets a man who walked in the same Spirit? . . . His successors permit no innovations, but administer the Churches in exactly the same way he did. Now one of Gregory’s institutions is the doxology in the manner now contested, and his church preserves this usage as a tradition received from him; if you insist on proof, all you have to do is make a short journey and hear it yourselves.97

Melanchthon is right to see in Basil a clear defense of the full-divinity of the Holy Spirit against the “Spirit-deniers”; Melanchthon even uses the term itself and concludes his “testimony from the Church Fathers” on the Holy Spirit with, “Therefore, against the Pneumatomachoi, the Spirit is truly from God, and is not separate from the Father and Son, but homoousios with the Father and the Son.”98 But the modern scholar is aware of a problem. We know that Melanchthon is correct that Basil indeed affirmed the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. However, Melanchthon seems unaware of (or unwilling to admit) Basil’s “economy of 96 Enarratio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 234). 97 See Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 110 – 11. 98 Explicatio Symboli Niceni (CR 23, 380).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

140

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

language”; throughout the text, Basil himself avoids calling the Holy Spirit homoousion with the Father and Son, despite his clear intention that the Holy Spirit be understood as such. This economy was criticized by both Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. Remember, however, that when Basil was writing, the Nicene Creed ended with “And we believe in the Holy Spirit.” It would remain for the Council of Constantinople (led by Gregory Nazianzen) to extend the third article of the Creed. Even then, the council fathers affirmed in every way possible the full-divinity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son (by calling the Spirit “Lord, and Giver of Life”) but do not use the term homoousion. This “economy” was an attempt to affirm the orthodox faith without causing too much scandal by using words foreign to Scripture.99 The plight of the fourth century is much like that of the sixteenth century. Like the council fathers, Melanchthon sees the full divinity of the Holy Spirit clearly taught in Scripture. However, such technical terms are not used in the Gospel or the Epistles. One then had recourse to the apostolic tradition, and Melanchthon follows Basil and others by referring the baptismal liturgy. The modern scholar discusses this expansion of the Creed through the idea of a “development of doctrine.” Neither Basil nor Melanchthon, however, would be comfortable with such language. While they too affirm that the orthodox faith becomes more explicitly articulated in later centuries, this is not due to a growth in understanding but rather a reaction against the raving of heretics who tear down what was already established. This then raises the next question related to Basil’s De spiritu sancto on the “unwritten verities” or “secret tradition.” This topic, which so enraged succeeding generations, does not seem to have been cited by Roman Catholic polemicists, nor did it trouble Melanchthon. As we have seen, it would not topple his understanding of either apostolic succession or the clarity of Scripture. For Melanchthon understood Basil – quite rightly – not to be referring to new revelations or secret teachings. Rather, these were “secret” things because they are known only from full participation in the liturgy (i. e., those who had passed through the catechumenate); that is, the liturgy of the Church is itself the proclamation of the Gospel and has a normative role in the formation of doctrine.100 99 It was Gregory Nazianzen who was more bold, see the Fifth Theological Oration, section 10 ¯What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is he consubstantial? Yes, if he is A God,” see Christology of the Later Fathers, ed. Edward Hardy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1954), 199. Gregory of Nyssa, also present at the Council and named a theologian who should be read to interpret the Creed by the Emperor, followed Basil by shying away from Gregory Nazianzen’s boldest formulations of the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit. 100 Basil himself writes “Are not all of these things found in unpublished and unwritten teachings, which our fathers guarded in silence, safe from meddling and petty curiosity? They had learned their lesson well; reverence for the mysteries is best encouraged by silence. The uninitiated were not even allowed to be present at the mysteries [i.e., the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Defense of Christological and Trinitarian Formulations in Other Works

6.2

141

The Holy Spirit at Creation

Melanchthon also cited Basil and Nazianzen in his exegesis of Genesis 1:2 (“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”). Following the tradition, Melanchthon identified the “Spirit of God” mentioned here with the Holy Spirit in his Annotations on Some Obscure Chapters of Genesis (1523): In the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is signified by the ‘Spirit of God.’ Therefore, we do not speak of the air [or wind], for air is water, and it is carried forth, was warmed, Basil, Ambrose, and Jerome read the text so and Basil cites some Syrian as a witness. And because of this [testimony] what was said above is taught: familiarity with the water is not natural, but the Holy Spirit brooded over the water. And this is the cause of the sequence of events.

And later, at the verse “He saw that it was good,” Melanchthon added: Nazianzen explains well what Basil mentioned before, that is, that on the first day the light was established, diffused throughout the whole universe, which afterwards was gathered together from all parts and was placed in the Sun.101

The sources for these quotations are not clear, though it is possible that Melanchthon was reading the Hexaemeron, as we know that he later cited this work.102 However, it could also have come from a glossa ordinaria; and this is likely, given that Basil is listed with other Fathers concerning the interpretation of these passages. This citation of the Cappadocian Fathers was made in an exegetical work, where the role of the Holy Spirit is affirmed with little debate. This changes, however, when we see the same argument added to the Loci of 1543. Here Melanchthon affirmed, again citing Basil, that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit of God who moved over the face of deep, and therefore proving the distinction among the persons of the Trinity.103

Eucharist]; how could you expect these teachings to be paraded about in public documents?” On the Holy Spirit (chapter 27, 99). I draw the reader’s attention briefly back to Melanchthon’s affirmation in the Loci, 1521: “We do better to adore the mysteries of the Deity than to investigate them.” Silent reverence for the mysteries of God cannot be confused with either indifference, fideism, or gnosticism. Sadly, not all modern scholars are so careful. An irresponsible charge of gnosticism is leveled against St. Basil by the otherwise respectable work of V†tor Westhelle, “Augsburg Confession VII and the Historic Episcopate” Dialog 39 (Fall 2000) : 222 – 28, esp. 226 – 27. 101 Commentary on Genesis, 1523 (CR 13, 766 & 769, respectively). According to Meijering, the reference is from Oration 44,2 (MPG 36, 609). 102 See Homily 2, Chapter 6 (MPG 29, 43). 103 Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 632 – 33).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

142

7.

Use of the Cappadocians Against the Radical Reformers

Conclusion

In all of Melanchthon’s arguments against the radical Reformers, a pattern clearly emerges: Melanchthon argued from “the clear word” of Scripture, and then presented the patristic testimony undergirding that reading of Scripture, and then he admonished his readers to attend to the “testimony of the Church” and adhere to the “clear voice” (certa vox) of the “Church’s vocabulary” (vocabulorum Ecclesiae) and again to “the grammar of divine speech” (grammatica sermonis divini). This theological grammar is established in Scripture and the Creeds, for the Creeds are “formed within the Church as a summary of doctrine” (Ideo Symbola condita sunt in Ecclesia Dei, ut doctrinae summa breviter comprehensa). Further, Melanchthon makes no sharp division between Scripture and the Creeds for “there is but one, pure, and incorruptible voice of God handed down in the Church given to us so that all may hear.” Finally, in urging the radical Reformers to remain within the pure and holy tradition of “divine grammar” Melanchthon also made a fundamental affirmation of the Church; for it is only from within the Church that one hears the Gospel. The word of God remains in the eternity ; the Church shall stand wheresoever the Gospel is preached. In conclusion, I affirm that although the quantitative amount of Cappadocian citations by Melanchthon is relatively small, one finds Cappadocian quotations at the heart of his most significant theological arguments against the Anabaptists and anti-Trinitarians. The Cappadocians are for him exemplary theologians, for they are well-educated and eloquent men who put their knowledge in service to the proclamation of the Gospel. Philosophy and the sciences permeated – but never subverted – their theology. Further, especially in arguments against the Radical Reformers, he finds their Christological and Trinitarian works sufficient to silence his opponents. For Melanchthon, there were no new heresies, only specters of the past come to haunt the Church; therefore, one need only repeat the formulas of the certain grammar of the Church in order to exorcize them yet again. As Fraenkel summarized Melanchthon’s understanding, “What the Christological and Trinitarian doctrines need is not so much supporting argument or proof as an explanation.”104 To this end, Melanchthon uses the Cappadocians as expert witnesses – just as one might imagine in a court of law – whose testimony can help lead the jury (i. e., the students of theology and interested lay people) to the correct understanding of the raw, biblical evidence.

104 Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum, 38. In this regard, Melanchthon is similar to nearly all of his colleagues, whether Lutheran, Roman, or Reformed. See Hughes Oliphant Old, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 130.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Chapter 4: Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

Therefore we should know that the church of God is the assembly which is bound to the voice or ministration of the Gospel . . . through the voice of the Gospel [as it is] heard, read, and pondered [God] moves [our] minds by the Holy Spirit, wants us to assent, and renews eternal life in them. . . . But after this is established, that in the church there must be a voice of the Gospel and the ministry, then questions arise regarding the persons. Is the church bound to the bishops and their colleges, which are said to hold the office of ministry? Likewise, is [the church] bound to a regular succession of bishops and colleges? I reply : the church is bound to the very Gospel of God, because in order that it may be proclaimed in the ministry, God raises up some men from time to time to teach correctly. . . . But when the ministers or bishops or colleges or others teach things which are in conflict with the gospel and the doctrine of the apostles, it is necessary to follow the rule of Paul: ‘If any one teach another Gospel, let him be accursed’ [Gal 1:8]. From this rule we can judge that the church is not bound to certain titles or a regular succession. For when those who hold the power of orders err, they must not be heeded.. . . We must agree that the church is a visible assembly, but it is not like the kingdom of popes but an assembly like a company of scholars. . . . The Word of God itself is the judge and to it is added the confession of the true church. . . . In this way controversies over doctrine are settled. Loci Communes, 15431 I grant you that Melanchthon has something to offer to young people in the field of grammar and rhetoric and has achieved quite a bit in the field of education, but he has had a greater effect [on the religious debate] and is more intent on destroying orthodox religion and suppressing the teaching authority of St. Peter. Johann Fabri, Bishop of Vienna, 15382

1 CR 21, 834 – 36; Preus, 132 – 33. 2 In a letter to Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, cited in Erika Rummel, The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000), 127.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

144

1.

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

Introduction

This chapter will examine the theological conflicts with Roman Catholics in which Melanchthon cited the Cappadocian Fathers. These controversies center around the doctrine of justification, the power and primacy of the pope and the episcopal office, monasticism, and the sacrifice of the Mass. In each case, Melanchthon cited one or more of the Cappadocian Fathers as a theological authority against certain articulations of the faith, or they were used as historical models to show that the Roman Catholic church had strayed from the pure apostolic faith.3 The Lutheran Reformation originated in a profound disagreement within the Church over the correct articulation of divine grace, especially concerning the doctrine of justification. In affirming the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, Melanchthon repeatedly cited a passage from St. Basil’s sermon On Humility. It was essential for Melanchthon to show that Basil articulated an understanding of justification that was in harmony with the Evangelical affirmation; in doing so, he demonstrated the orthodoxy of the Wittenberg reform movement. However, beyond claiming Basil’s authority for the Evangelical cause, the Cappadocians as whole played a relatively minor role in the debates with Roman Catholics over the nature of grace. It is not until the intra-Lutheran controversy over the relationship between divine grace and the human will that the Cappadocians would be given a complex role. Therefore, this chapter will first unfold the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone held by the Evangelicals. Afterwards, I will demonstrate that Basil’s sermon On Humility served a significant role in Melanchthon’s appeals to the patristic testimony. Then, we will move on to the more pronounced use of the Cappadocian Fathers (especially Basil and Gregory Nazianzen) by Melanchthon to criticize and correct the Roman Catholic teachings of papal and episcopal authority, monasticism, and the sacrifice of the Mass. 3 One such example of the charge that the Roman Catholic church had unnecessarily changed the apostolic tradition (and therefore opened up many avenues for corruption) was the law of clerical celibacy. This was a significant argument in the Reformation, though one in which the Cappadocians played a limited role. Melanchthon argued against enforced clerical celibacy by affirming that celibacy was a divine gift, one rarely given. Forcing clergy to be celibate was not only unnecessary ; it was patently in contrast to the natural law and apostolic tradition, since God gave the command to “be fruitful and multiply” and since Paul urged marriage on those who could not control their lust (Gen 2:18 and 1 Cor 7:2). In 1543, Melanchthon cites the example of bishops whose married state did not detract from their pastoral obligations, and he names Gregory Nazianzen’s father as an example (Responsio ad scriptum cleri, 1543; MSA 6, 410). This example is not found in his earlier work, De Coniugio Sacerdotum, 1540 (CR 23, 669 – 691). There, he cited only the example of the Greek churches and the early canons of the Latin church.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Doctrine of Justification by Grace through Faith Alone

145

2.

The Doctrine of Justification by Grace through Faith Alone

2.1

Appeals to St. Paul and St. Augustine

For Luther and Melanchthon, the Pauline theology of grace is the north star for all theological discourse. In fact, Melanchthon even described all of church history as the history of Pauline theology.4 To underline this point, one should remember Melanchthon’s concept of history, according to which there are no new heresies. The specter of old heresies return to haunt; when this happens, they are best exorcized by returning to the ancient formulas of orthodox teaching. In the face of a revived “Pelagianism,” the Church needed to return to the sinfulness of humanity and the gracious acts of God in Christ articulated in the Pauline epistles. Neither Luther nor Melanchthon claim to have discovered the gospel through any other source than the Scripture alone.5 There existed, however, the testimony of ancient Christian authors who undergirded (more or less) their reading of the Pauline epistles. Among the patristic authors, St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430) is the most lauded by Evangelicals for his explanation of divine grace. Luther and Melanchthon made repeated appeals to Augustine and were conscientious in their efforts to see a Pauline theology of grace (with Augustine as Paul’s expositor) revived in the lecture hall and pulpit. This praise, however, was not absolute. Augustine is lauded primarily (even almost exclusively) for his exposition on the doctrines of original sin and justification by grace alone as 4 See Declamatiuncula in Divi Pauli Doctrinam, 1520 (MSA 1, 42). Here we see that the Church must exert much toil and diligence in order to hold fast to the Pauline doctrine (i. e., the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone); cited in Fraenkel, Testimonia, 87 n. 184. 5 As exegetes, Luther and Melanchthon were certainly in conversation with many commentators (both ancient and contemporary ; both known and unknown) who helped shape their readings of Scripture. That said, however, I mean that Luther and Melanchthon were not led to Paul via Augustine or any other author. Rather, through a study of Paul they were led to explore further other commentators, adding an element of debate to an already lively discussion. Luther’s own recollection of his discovery of justification by grace through faith alone in Paul is recorded in the “Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Works” (LW 34: 336 – 37; WA 54: 185.13 – 186.16). Melanchthon’s own extensive contributions to biblical commentaries (especially of Romans, Colossians, and Proverbs) is detailed in Timothy J. Wengert, “The Biblical Commentaries of Philip Melanchthon,” Philip Melanchthon (1497 – 1560) and the Commentary, ed. Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997), 106 – 147. Its is well to note the following: “Romans functioned for Melanchthon not so much as a ‘canon within a canon’ – as if he could thereby ignore or distort other books through his single-minded interest – but as a key to the entire Bible, providing the exegete with both the goal (scopus) of the Scripture and the proper method (methodus) for interpretation” (139). For a full scope of Melanchthon scholarly contributions, see also the essay by Stefan Rhein, “Melanchthon and Greek Literature,” 149 – 70.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

146

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

articulated in his anti-Pelagian writings. Not only do the anti-Pelagian writings of Augustine supersede the works of other Fathers, they also supersede everything else Augustine wrote.6 Nevertheless, even Augustine is subject to correction.7 Lutheran appeals to St. Augustine must be understood first and foremost in relation to Lutheran criticisms of the common medieval [i.e., Scholastic] explanation of original sin, human nature, and divine grace. In a subsequent discussion of this chapter, we will examine Melanchthon’s criticisms of Scholasticism in reference to the doctrines of original sin and justification. Here, I wish to highlight briefly the explicit connections Luther and Melanchthon made between their teachings concerning these two doctrines to St. Augustine and, subsequently, to the authority of St. Basil. Luther’s own encounters with Augustine’s writings began as early as 1509, when Luther was introduced to De Trinitate while a student at Erfurt.8 As professor for sacred Scripture at Wittenberg, Luther began lectures on the Psalms (1513 – 1515) and the Epistle to the Romans (1515/1516), both of which reveal extensive references to Augustine.9 There was a slow but steady growth in the influence of Augustine in the theological curriculum at Wittenberg University. In 1517, Luther famously boasted: “Our theology and St. Augustine are continuing to prosper and reign in the university through the hand of God. Aristotle is 6 Loci communes, 1521 (CR 21, 98; Pauck, 32): “But the Pelagians are said to have denied that there is original sin. In several volumes, Augustine brilliantly tore their teachings to bits. For in this controversy he rules as a King so decisively that almost all the other things which he wrote in addition to the Pelagian theme seem rather cold.” 7 For instance, Melanchthon found certain aspects of Augustine’s accounts of both faith and grace insufficient. This is in large part because Luther and Melanchthon (following Erasmus), understood gratia first and foremost as favor or misericordia. Grace (gratia) must be kept distinct from the transformation of the sinner as a result of grace (donum in gratia). Later, Melanchthon also rejected certain articulations by Augustine concerning predestination and the will. See Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and Augustine of Hippo,” Lutheran Quarterly 22 (2008): 249 – 67; Rolf Schäfer, “Melanchthon’s Interpretation of Romans 5:15: His Departure from the Augustinian Concept of Grace Compared to Luther’s,” Philip Melanchthon (1497 – 1560) and the Commentary, ed. Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham (Sheffield: Academic, 1997), 79 – 104; and Wilhelm Maurer, “Der Einfluss Augustins auf Melanchthons theologische Entwicklung,” Kerygma und Dogma 5 (1959): 165-199. See also Fraenkel, Testimonia, 299 – 303 where he discusses both Melanchthon’s criticisms of Augustine as well as Melanchthon’s apologetic justification for Augustine’s errors. 8 Melanchthon’s preface to the second volume of Luther’s Latin works in 1546 tells us of Luther’s study of Augustine while a student at Erfurt (MBW 4277/CR 6, 159). See Lohse, Martin Luther, 45 – 50. 9 See Lohse, Martin Luther, 23. See also Leif Grane, Modus loquendi theologicus: Luthers Kampf um die Erneuerung der Theologie, 1515 – 1518 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 23 – 104; and Brecht, Martin Luther, 130. Brecht adds “. . . for Luther, the most significant [biblical commentator] was Augustine, in the lectures on Romans. But even he was used very independently and originally by Luther.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Doctrine of Justification by Grace through Faith Alone

147

declining daily and is inclined toward a fall which will end him forever. It is remarkable how lectures on the Sentences are despised.”10 Two prominent Scholastic faculty members (Andreas Karlstadt and Nicholas von Amsdorf) even underwent an “Augustinian” conversion.11 As previously mentioned, Augustine “ruled as king” concerning the doctrine of grace. In a letter written the same year, Melanchthon complained that very few theologians understood the true doctrine of grace, except for Augustine and a few Greeks. As early as 1521, Melanchthon framed the current theological controversy as a repetition of the Pelagian controversy, in which the same charges made against Luther were once hurled against Augustine.12 Restoring the Pauline teaching of the dreadful weakness of human nature (and, therefore, the justification of humanity by grace through faith alone) was necessary and most efficiently accomplished through a restoration of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings. In the words of Bernhard Lohse, “the theology of the church father [Augustine], adopted in connection with Paul, was arrayed against Scholasticism.”13 10 A letter to Johann Lang at Erfurt, dated 18 May 1517, WA, I, 41/LW 48, 42. 11 Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486 – 1541) was a senior faculty member and representative of the via antiqua. In September of 1516, he objected to the public theses (for the degree of Sententiarius) written by Bartholomäus Bernhardi, a student of Luther. Influenced by Luther’s lectures on Romans, Bernhardi’s theses stated that without grace a person can in no way keep God’s commandments nor is it possible for a person to prepare himself for grace. Righteousness only comes when God does not impute sin. In particular, he denied that On True and False Repentance (which was copiously cited by Gratian) was written by Augustine. As time went on, Karlstadt would take a stance that was decidedly more severe and radical in his interpretation of Augustine over against Luther, culminating in Karlstadt’s expulsion from Wittenberg in 1522 as a result of his violent iconoclasm. For an account of Bernhardi’s disputation and Karlstadt’s reaction, see Brecht, Martin Luther, 168 – 70 and Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of his Thought, 1517 – 1525 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 2 – 4. Likewise, Nicholas von Amsdorf (1483 – 1565) represented the Scotists on the faculty. He came to accept Augustine’s understanding of the relationship between free will and grace over against Scotus, Occam and Biel. He later articulated the position that not only were good works not necessary to salvation, they were even detrimental as part of a bitter dispute with Georg Major. It is interesting that these two original representatives of the old way became two of the most enthusiastic and controversial reformers, surpassing Luther in zeal and radicalism. See Irene Dingel, Nikolaus von Amsdorf (1483 – 1565): Zwischen Reformation und Politik (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008) and Robert Kolb, Nikolaus von Amsdorf (1483 – 1565): Popular Polemics in the Preservation of Luther’s Legacy (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1978). 12 See Adversus theologorum Parisinorum decretum pro Luthero apologia (CR 1, 398 – 416). The specific charge against both Augustine and Luther was of Manicheism, for their affirmations concerning the lack of human liberty over against sin. Melanchthon here refers to the Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum ad Bonifatium Romanae ecclesiae episcopum libri iv, 421 (PL 44, 549 – 638). Augustine responded to charges made against him in two letters. One letter is allegedly from Julian of Ecclanum and the other was written in the name of eighteen Pelagian bishops, addressed to bishop Rufinus of Thessalonica. 13 Lohse, Martin Luther, 23.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

148

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

This early appropriation of the authority of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings endured throughout the 1530s and 1540s. In 1533, the University of Wittenberg statutes were revised, requiring the theology department to hold lectures on Romans, John, the Psalms, Genesis and Isaiah, and Augustine’s On the Spirit and the Letter.14 In the Disputation Concerning Justification (1536), Luther regularly appealed to Augustine’s interpretation of Paul concerning original sin over against Scholastic formulations.15 According to Melanchthon, it was Origen who polluted the pure font of biblical teaching concerning justification. Augustine restored the purity of the well, though the Scholastics still preferred to drink from the gutter.16 Luther and Melanchthon saw themselves as working alongside Augustine, as ones who labor to ensure the pure proclamation of the Gospel. The careful study of Paul could be guided by the authority and clarity of certain “more pure writers” (scriptores puriores). First and foremost was Augustine, but as the debate continued, Melanchthon found other authorities to stand with Augustine and guide the Church to the correct proclamation of the Gospel. Lutheran appeals to Augustine are surprising to none. What is surprising is that, next to Augustine, Basil was Melanchthon’s most important patristic witness for the validity and veracity of the Lutheran understanding of justification by grace through faith. Basil – unlike Augustine – is not known for making a significant contribution to the doctrine of grace. Yet, Melanchthon heard in Basil clear support for the Wittenberg theology. Two sermons in particular by Basil, 14 See Wengert, “The Biblical Commentaries of Philip Melanchthon,” 109. Melanchthon later wrote a preface to the work, underlining its importance to interpreting Scripture, see MBW 3973/CR 5, 803 – 10. 15 Disputation Concerning Justification, 1536 (WA 39, 82 – 126; LW 34, 147 – 96). Luther recognized that some Scholastic theologians had a better grasp of original sin than others if they followed Augustine, (see esp. points 12 – 15). Yet, in all matters related to the doctrines of original sin and grace, Augustine is the most trustworthy and a necessary antidote to Scholastic errors concerning the relationship between baptism and concupiscence because it is Augustine who has correctly understood Paul: “We, however, declare with Augustine, who alone preserved this teaching for us, that original sin is removed not so that it does not exist, but so that it is not imputed” (180). Later, Luther affirmed, “St. Augustine and the blessed Paul are the most reliable doctors on the matter of original sin, for they define this sin correctly” (186 – 87). 16 For Melanchthon’s charges against Origen are discussed in Fraenkel, Testimonia, 86 – 90. For but two examples, see Quo Iudicio Legendi Autores, 1522 (CR 20, 705) and De Ecclesia et de Autoritate Verbum Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 610). For Origen as the Father of Pelagianism, see Melanchthon’s Preface to Luther’s Latin Works, July 1545 (MBW 3973/CR 5, 803 – 810). The connection between the Wittenberg reform movement with Paul and Augustine over against Origen, Pelagius, and the Scholastics is reaffirmed in: Preface to the Second Volume of Luther’s Latin Works, 1546 (MBW 4277/CR 6, 155 – 170, esp. 159, 166 – 67); and the Preface to the Third Volume of Luther’s Latin Works, 1549 (MBW 5515/CR 7, 390 – 399, esp. 391 – 92 and 395).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

149

St. Basil on Grace

On Humility and On Penance, would serve as touchstones, along with Paul and Augustine, for affirming the prevenient grace of God through Christ for the justification of humanity. Melanchthon saw these pillars of western and eastern theology speaking in accord.17 The fact that he was able to cite a Greek Father in support of the Wittenberg cause was seen as a significant victory. It underlined a fundamental point: not only did the Roman Catholic church stray from the doctrine of grace as established by the Augustinian (i. e., Latin) tradition, but it has strayed from the larger universal tradition of biblical interpretation.18

3.

St. Basil on Grace

There is a want of scholarly literature on Basil’s doctrine of grace. The only existing monograph on the subject, by Eugen Scholl, admits that identifying Basil’s doctrine of grace must be accomplished by sifting through various sources as opposed to a study of a particular text.19 A significant aspect of Scholl’s monograph is to show that Basil’s understanding of grace, though differently articulated, has resonance with the Scholastic tradition, especially the articulation of habitual grace. He attempts to demonstrate this through an examination of Basil’s works against Eunomius and Macedonius. However, Scholl offers an examination of Basil from a pre-constructed system of questions; it is not a historical or textual study. Given the apologetic character of the work, it is of no significant use for our study. Scholl’s work certainly draws out some interesting parallels between Basil’s thoughts on grace and Scholastic categories, but as a result Basil sounds more like a theologian of the thirteenth century rather than the fourth. Since Basil was never prompted to offer an extended reflection on the nature of grace, the theologians who followed sought answers from him to questions for which only they knew the context. Recognizing Basil as a pillar of orthodoxy, subsequent theologians have mined his works, looking for veins of thought that may not exist. Upon finding the occasional nugget – a rare concise statement about grace – theologians (such as Augustine or Melanchthon) have offered these up as confirmations of their own thought. Their efforts were not without 17 The harmony between Augustine and Basil with Paul on the teaching of grace in Melanchthon’s estimation becomes even more significant if we remember Melanchthon’s early affirmation that so few theologians have commented on the Pauline epistles correctly ; see Letter to Georg Ebner, 12 February 1521(MBW 124 [T1, 253]/CR 20, 704 – 5). 18 In replying to the judgment of the theology faculty at the Sorbonne, Melanchthon chides that they, not Luther, have strayed from the tradition (CR 1, 406). 19 See Eugen Scholl, Die Lehre des Heiligen Basilius von der Gnade (Freiburg, I. B.: Herder, 1881).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

150

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

success. There are indeed provocative quotations from Basil on grace; two of which were repeatedly used by Melanchthon to claim the authority of St. Basil for the Evangelical cause.

3.1

Melanchthon and St. Basil on Justification

Hear the words of the Apostle [Paul]: He who desires to boast, should boast in the Lord. He means that for us Christ became the wisdom from God, righteousness, holiness and salvation; thereby, as it is written, the one who desires to boast should boast in the Lord. Then this is the true and only boast in God: that no one may extol himself in his own righteousness, except in so far as he discerns that within him true righteousness is lacking and that only through the grace of Christ is he made justified.20

So affirmed Basil in his homily On Humility, which will be the focus of this chapter’s discussion of justification. In referring to this sermon in 1545, Melanchthon boldly claimed that with these words, Basil announced, “without ambiguity,” that humanity is saved only because of the mediation of Christ and not by any virtues of ours.21 The faith of Basil is the apostolic faith, which is also proclaimed in Evangelical congregations. By claiming the authority of the one apostolic tradition as articulated by the two greatest figures of the Latin and the Greek churches, Melanchthon certified the orthodoxy of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. We are accepted and made righteous on account of Christ and not because of any prior merit. Reflecting on the importance Melanchthon assigned to this quote, Hans-Peter Hasse quipped that Basil is the “patron saint of the reformed [i.e., Reformation] teaching on justification.”22 Melanchthon either referred to or quoted Basil’s sermon On Humility at least 20 MPG 31, 529; CPG §2865. The sermon is in reference to 1 Cor 1:26 – 30. 21 Declamatio de Basilio Episcopo, 1545 (CR 11, 683). Although Melanchthon may have known of this quotation as early as 1532 (when the Erasmus edition of Basil’s works was published) the first time I have found it cited is in the De Ecclesia et de Auctoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (in Latin, CR 23, 616); the Commentary on Romans, 1540 (CR 15, 755); followed by the Loci communes, 1543 (CR 21, 748 – 49); Postilla on Basil, 1549 or 1555 (in Latin, CR 24, 363); Confessio Saxonicarum, 1551 (in Latin, CR 28, 389); Enarratio Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, 1556 (in Latin, with citation to the Erasmus edition, CR 15, 877); Academicis, 1558 (in Greek with no translation, CR 9, 442); Disputatio, n.d. (in Greek with Latin translation, CR 12, 532); and Responsiones Scriptae a Philippo Melanthone ad impios articulos Bavaricae inquisitionis, 1558 (MSA 6, 327). While speaking of the “promises of the gospel” in the notes of the 1533 Loci assembled by Bugenhagen, 1 Cor 1:26 – 30 is cited but with no reference to Basil (see CR 21, 327). 22 Hans-Peter Hasse, “Melanchthon und die ‘Alba amicorum’: Melanchthons Theologie in Spiegel seiner Bucheintragungen,” Der Theologe Melanchthon. Melanchthon Schriften der Stadt Bretten, vol. 5, ed. Günter Frank (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2000), 318.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

151

St. Basil on Grace

ten times. In a later reference (Enarratio Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, 1556), he actually cited his source: the 1532 edition from Erasmus.23 In addition to printed references, we have already seen this quotation when discussing the 1559 portrait of Melanchthon by Lucas Cranach the Younger. Clearly, this passage was very important to Melanchthon throughout his career. Meijering notes an anomaly in Melanchthon’s translation of the word dediwaiyl]vov in this quotation.24 When he cites Basil in Latin or provides a Latin translation, Melanchthon most often translated dediwaiyl]vov as iustificari (to be made justified; present passive infinitive), whereas iustificatum esse (to have been made justified; perfect passive infinitive) would have been a more precise translation. Meijering asserts that Melanchthon knew better and was either guilty of sloppy scholarship or deliberate duplicity. This can be proved, according to Meijering, not only from Melanchthon’s excellent knowledge of Greek but also because he provided the more literal translation elsewhere.25 Meijering is correct that Melanchthon deliberately altered the translation to emphasize more the continuous nature of justification (which occurs daily in the remission of sins, the proclamation of the Gospel, and the administration of the sacraments), which he favored over a static concept of justification.26 However, Melanchthon was not being deceptive. In the very source Meijering quoted, Melanchthon informed his reader why he prefers the present passive to the perfect passive.27 That is, Melanchthon is offering a theological interpretation, not a mistranslation. Using iustificari instead of iustificatum esse allows Melanchthon to emphasize a certain aspect of justification while staying in harmony with the main theological point being made, that justification occurs only on account of the divine mercy through Christ; it is something God does and humans receive. Here, Melanchthon explains that, though we use the phrase iustificatum esse, iustificari captures better the more precise use of the term, as he understands the biblical tradition. Therefore, we see again that Meijering has pressed his case too hard against Melanchthon. A survey of Melanchthon’s teaching on justification would be a complex task, as it was the source of many controversies. This study focuses on but two: 23 24 25 26

CR 15, 877 – 78. Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic Thought, 40. See Postilla, n.d. (CR 25, 342). The subject of this postil is Luke 18. As we read previously in the Loci of 1521, Melanchthon emphasized that even those who have been justified must struggle with the power of sin, “For those justified by the Spirit, good affections struggle with the bad” (CR 21, 92; Pauck, 29). This resonates with Luther’s own thought, as he expressed later in the Small Catechism, “[Baptism] signifies that the old creature in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned and die through daily contrition and repentance, and on the other hand that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever” (BSLK, 516; BC, 360). 27 Postilla, CR 25, 341 – 342.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

152

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

Melanchthon’s early criticisms of scholastic understandings of grace and his defense of his understanding of grace from later criticisms by gnesio-Lutherans. The latter will be the subject of the following chapter. In this chapter, I will focus on Melanchthon’s early articulations of grace – especially his emphasis on prevenient grace and justification – as found in the Loci communes of 1521. There, not only are these ideas succinctly expressed but they are also most clearly crafted within the context of his criticisms of scholastic articulations of grace. Melanchthon was emphatic and consistent in his declaration that humanity is justified solely by the act of a loving and merciful God in Christ; what is more, this justification occurred without any consideration of either potential or foreknown human merit. Melanchthon had no patience for those whose assertion of human freedom and goodness extended no further than an analysis of external acts of charity or justice. Even more contemptible were illustrations of human freedom which rested on our ability to choose between various mundane options. To be sure, such freedom and goodness exist. Nonetheless, Melanchthon is harshly critical of “the Sophists” (i. e., scholastic theologians) who do not account for the all-encompassing power of sin. The reality of sin is such that while a person may control their behavior so as to be pleasing to society and appear to conform to the divine law, a person cannot govern the heart.28 God’s law requires more than external acts. God demands an internal disposition that cannot be caused by external conformity : “You should love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself” (Deut 6:5; Mark 12:28 – 30). The human will – i. e., the heart – is so thoroughly corrupted by sin that it is governed by affections beyond the control of the intellect or will, often unknown to others, and even to ourselves: But what place do external acts [of virtue] have in Christian teaching if the heart is insincere? . . . I confess that in the external choice of things there is some freedom, but I deny altogether that internal affections are in our power. Nor do I acknowledge that there is any will (voluntas) which seriously opposes the affections, and I say these things of course, about man as he is by nature. For in those who have been justified by the Spirit, good affections struggle with the bad, as we shall teach below.29

For Melanchthon, it is clear that we all struggle with our affections (Rom 7:19) even after justification and that we struggle to bring our affections in line with that which we know (or consider) to be good.30 However, this struggle and any 28 See Loci communes, 1521 (CR 21, 90). Melanchthon prefers to speak of the heart since it is both more descriptive than “the will” of one’s deepest and all-encompassing desires and because it is the term used by Scripture. 29 CR 21, 92; Pauck, 29. 30 CR 21, 92. For Melanchthon, knowledge serves the will, and the will is an unruly, reckless guide (87).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

153

St. Basil on Grace

subsequent merit cannot be the foundation of our justification before God, since God judges hearts, not deeds alone. The exhortation “Do the good that is within you” leaves the impression that there is some independent element of the human person, left free of sin’s corruption, that may, as a result of its own striving, accomplish some good pleasing to God and worthy of merit. Therefore, since “do the good that is within you” cannot account for the all-encompassing power of sin nor the absolute primacy of divine grace, it cannot be the starting point of any discussion of human freedom. Attacking the scholastics who argued that God responds to human initiative (citing Zech 1:3 “Return to me . . . and I will return to you”), Melanchthon countered “This does not mean that the beginning of repentance is placed on us. Augustine refuted this error more than once, and it is not obscure except to the Sophists, who have mastered nothing but their puny little manuals of logic.”31 While there is a role to be played by the human will, asserting that human repentance, reconciliation, and justification begin with humanity fails to see two things: first, that the movement towards us begins with and is sustained by God and second, justification is not rooted in our effort or merit but first and foremost in the favor and benevolence of God towards us despite the corruption of the human heart. In the Loci of 1521, Melanchthon began his discussion of grace by clarifying its definition. Grace is simply the favor of God.32 Many errors have arisen, he claims, because theologians have failed to make this distinction. Melanchthon especially condemned the Thomistic tradition which made grace a quality of the soul.33 Melanchthon’s understanding of grace acknowledges the regenerative power of grace through the Spirit,34 but this regeneration is not the cause of 31 CR 21, 111; Pauck, 45. Melanchthon goes on to clarify that there is a two-fold nature to God’s effort to turn us towards himself. The first is through the Law, the second is through the Gospel. Each time, however, it is God’s initiative and work. It is through the gospel that God declares to us his favor despite our sins (111). 32 See CR 21, 140 & 158. 33 CR 21, 157. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II, 1, q. 110, a. 2. Thomas’s concern here was to show that divine grace must correspond to something within the human person. That is, divine grace is not something completely foreign to human nature, since humanity (as with all of creation) is a product of divine grace and whose very existence is saturated by grace through God’s continuous action, which sustains the essence of all things. Thus, by making grace a quality of the soul, Thomas affirmed that grace, far from being a mere accident, transforms the very essence of human nature. In that concern, Thomas and Philip are not so far apart. 34 CR 21, 178. It should also be added, for the sake of clarity, that justification does not deny either regeneration or the efficaciousness of Christ’s merits. In addition to declaring us righteous, God does indeed also make us righteous. However, faith and love (i. e., good works) are separate; love does not perfect faith. Faith clings to the promise; what is more, faith is God work alone. Our regeneration happens with struggle and will not be perfected in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

154

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

justification. Further, regeneration itself is begun and maintained by clinging to God’s promise of favor to us through Christ alone. Thus, part and parcel of Melanchthon’s affirmation of justification is an understanding of grace as a “promise”: God’s promise to humanity that, because of the merits of Christ alone, he will be merciful to us though we deserve condemnation. This understanding of grace, Melanchthon argued, is the golden thread of Scripture.35 Again, he blames the scholastics for having forgotten this biblical (and thus, essential) aspect of grace: “But where, I ask, has Scholastic theology remembered the promises even in one word? This omission accounts for the fact that their theology obscures the grace of Christ, and makes him not a pledge of mercy but a legislator, and a much more exacting one than even Moses is considered to be.”36 Melanchthon’s articulation of justifying grace through faith alone allows for the reality of good works in the Christian life but refuses to entertain any consideration of glory or merit that is not attributed to the person and work of Christ alone. He is the cause of our salvation and the source of our renewal, therefore all praise for our conversion belong to Christ alone. Attempts to quantify merit and ascribe some purpose or value to our struggle are an understandable human trait; and it is for this very reason that it must be avoided! The very fact that the medieval Church had not only tolerated but had indulged in such questions is proof of its corruption. For Melanchthon, the full glory and merit owed to Christ alone must be restored and preserved. With this emphasis, we can see why the Pauline epistles (and Augustine’s antiPelagian works) – with their emphasis not only on the prevenient grace of God but also on the necessity of grace for perseverance in good works – were the rule by which the Evangelical reformers wished to judge how well the Church adhered to the whole message of Scripture: the promises of grace in Christ alone. During the writing of the Loci edition of 1521, Melanchthon had complained that very few theologians understood this divine proclamation, except for Augustine and a few Greeks.37 It is not clear to which Greeks he was referring at the time, but once Melanchthon had discovered Basil’s sermon On Humility, we can see why that passage was so important and so oft repeated. Melanchthon offered the this life. Nonetheless, it is God’s mercy and not our effort that allows us to persevere. God mercy, which grants us faith, is the cause of our merit (179). 35 In fact, the first proclamation of the gospel was given to Adam. In punishing the serpent, a promise of victory is declared to humanity (Gen 3:15). All of salvation history (i. e., biblical revelation) is the story of God treating his creation better than it deserves; it is the promise that despite our sinfulness, God will always act to restore us, be merciful to us. This is God’s consistent message, from Adam, to Abraham, to David, through the Prophets, and culminating in the coming of Christ; see CR 21, 140 – 42. 36 See CR 21, 176/Pauck, 104. 37 Letter to Georg Ebner, 12 February 1521(MBW 124 [T1, 253]).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On Bishops and Councils

155

greatest theologians of the western and eastern Christian tradition to show that they had clearly understood Scripture, a tradition from which the medieval tradition had departed and which the Evangelical reform movement was trying to restore: “Then this is the true and only boast in God: that no one may extol himself in his own righteousness, except in so far as he discerns that within him true righteousness is lacking and that only through the grace of Christ is he made justified.”38 Interestingly, it should be noted that other reformed-minded theologians, especially “Erasmian” Roman Catholics, used this quotation from Basil as well, though with stronger emphasis on the innate powers of the human will. Neither party seems to have commented upon the other’s divergent use of the same source.

4.

On Bishops and Councils

Melanchthon affirmed that magisterial authority rested primarily with a chain of pure teachers and only secondarily with those who hold public office in the Church. It is the succession of apostolic teaching in those duly educated and called to hold authority (i. e., a public office) in the Church, not episcopal office alone, which constitutes authority within the Church.39 Neither the laying on of hands nor an academic degree are themselves a guarantee that the person holding an ecclesiastical office is a pure teacher of the gospel.40 This was a 38 Basil, On Humility, MPG 31, 529. For an alternative use of the quotation, see Article 6 of the Augsburg Interim (1548). Drafted under the guidance of “Erasmian” reformer Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, and others, the article begins: “Since God does not justify human beings on the basis of works of righteousness that they do, but gratuitously, that is, without their merit, if they want to glory, let them glory in Christ alone, by whose merit alone they are redeemed from sin and justified. Yet, the merciful God does not deal with such people as with a dead block of wood, but draws them through acts of will, if they are of the age of reason. For such people do not receive those benefits of Christ, unless their minds and wills are moved by the prevenient grace of God to detest sin”; see “The Augsburg Interim,” Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 152. 39 This affirmation, spread throughout Melanchthon’s works, is most succinctly stated in the Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 834 – 36). Those who hold “public office” in the Church (either as ordained clergy or as teachers of theology) are subject to Gospel: ordination in apostolic succession is no more a guarantee from error any more than claiming a special revelation from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the public nature of magisterial authority is key : no one office is (in itself) sacrosanct or infallible, yet, no one may claim the authority to preach, teach, or administer the sacraments without having been duly examined and given a public call (see Article 14, Augsburg Confession, BSLK, 69; BC, 46). 40 An excellent historical survey of the Lutheran understanding of teaching authority in the Church has been written by Eric W. Gritsch, “Lutheran Teaching Authority : Past and Present,” Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans and Roman Catholics in Dialogue VI (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 138 – 48.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

156

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

double-edged sword, allowing Melanchthon to deny the authority of papal pronouncements and counciliar decrees that he thought violated the gospel, while also defending the teaching authority of the Church and her ministers against the Radical Reformers. The Cappadocian Fathers assisted Melanchthon in demonstrating this understanding. He pointed to the content of their theology as the source for their authority, not the fact that they held episcopal office. Yet, he was also able to use the Cappadocians to criticize sixteenth-century bishops who were not pure teachers of the gospel, not well educated, nor good models of a modest lifestyle. The Lutheran understanding of episcopal authority was articulated by Melanchthon in article twenty-eight the Augsburg Confession.41 The article begins with a criticism of bishops who have abused their power in the secular realm. The abuses Melanchthon cited are the “careless mixture” of the secular and ecclesiastical swords, in which prelates misconstrued their spiritual authority and took it upon themselves to depose emperors and kings “according to their pleasure,” and thereby causing many “extensive wars, uprisings, and rebellions.”42 It would be too hasty to assume, however, that Melanchthon believed that bishops had no role in society or that he advocated some foreshadowing of the “wall of separation” between Church and State. Rather, he is making a theological argument against both the claims for episcopal authority over secular authority and the difference in character between the laity and the ordained.43 Melanchthon affirmed that secular rulers were also ordained to their office by the will of God and that the responsibilities and rights of the spiritual and secular

41 Some scholarship has argued that Luther and Melanchthon had either ambiguous or low opinions of the episcopal office and only grudgingly accepted it as a necessity. See HansOttoWölber, “Usus evangelii: Das Bishofsamt in reformatorischer Sicht,” Mensch und Menschensohn: Festschrift für Bischof Professor D. Karl Witte, ed. Hartmut Sierig (Hamburg: Wittig, 1963) 81 – 98 and Bernard Lohse, “The Development of the Office of Leadership in the German Lutheran Churches: 1517 – 1918,” Episcopacy in the Lutheran Church? Studies in the Development and Definition of the Office of Church Leadership, ed. Ivar Asheim and Victor R. Gold (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970); and Merlyn E. Satrom, “Bishops and Ordination in the Lutheran Reformation of Sixteenth-Century Germany,” Lutheran Forum 33 (Summer 1999): 12 – 19. More astute historical observation, however, reveals that Luther and Melanchthon in fact viewed the episcopal office – with its function of oversight for pure preaching, teaching, and administration of the sacraments – as necessary for the Church. See several essays in Martin Brecht, ed., Martin Luther und das Bischofsamt (Berlin: Calwer, 1990); and Ralph F. Smith, Luther, Ministry, and Ordination Rites in the Early Reformation Church (New York: Peter Lang, 1996). These works, among others, are discussed in Wengert, Priesthood, Pastors, Bishops, 56 – 62. 42 BSLK, 120; BC, 90. 43 For claims to papal primacy, see Pope Gelasius, Decretum Gelasianum (494), ESDD §350, and especially Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302) §870.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On Bishops and Councils

157

realm should not be confused.44 In places where bishops possessed secular authority (as was not uncommon throughout the Holy Roman Empire), Melanchthon reminded bishops that they hold temporal authority “not as bishops by divine right but by human, imperial right” granted by the emperor “for the secular administration of their lands.”45 Such authority, he concluded, “has nothing at all to do with the gospel.” Rather, the divine right of bishops lies in the education, correction, and comfort of souls. Note here that Melanchthon, in contrast to many modern Protestants, is quite comfortable affirming the divine rights of bishops and those who possess the office of the keys. As a result of such authority, people are obliged to heed their spiritual authority in so far as they preach the gospel.46 When ecclesiastical authorities fall into error, however, it is the responsibility of the whole Church (and especially those vested with teaching authority) to call them back to the pure preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. Melanchthon writes: Consequently, according to divine right it is the office of bishop to preach the gospel, to forgive sins, to judge doctrine and reject doctrine that is contrary to the gospel, and to exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose ungodly life is manifest – not with human power but with God’s Word alone. That is why parishioners and churches owe obedience to bishops, according to this saying of Christ (Luke 10[:16]): ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me.’ But whenever they teach, institute, or introduce something contrary to the gospel, we have God’s command in such a case not to be obedient (Matt. 7[:15]): ‘Beware of false prophets.’ And St. Paul in Galatians 1[:8]): ‘But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you contrary what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!’ . . . . Canon law also commands the same in Part II, Question 7, in the chapters entitled ‘Priests’ and ‘Sheep.’ And St. Augustine writes in a letter against Petilian that one should not obey bishops, even if they have been regularly elected, when they err or teach and command something contrary to the holy, divine Scriptures.47

If bishops were content to concern themselves only with the duties that are theirs by divine right, they would not only please God and promote peace but also have more than enough to occupy their time. Further, Melanchthon adds that bishops who embraced reform would find their prestige and power increased rather than destroyed.48 Melanchthon also addressed the challenge that bishops have the right to 44 See James M. Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518 – 1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 45 BSLK, 123 – 24; BC, 94. 46 Wengert emphasizes (against Wilhelm Maurer) that the arguments of Article 28 are inexorably tied to the preceding articles, Priesthood, Pastors, Bishops, 62. 47 BSLK, 124 – 25; BC, 94. 48 BSLK, 131; BC, 102.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

158

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

change not only previously established canons but also the commands of Scripture itself. His opponents appealed to the fact that, contrary to the Ten Commandments, the Church transferred the Sabbath to Sunday.49 Melanchthon responds that such changes in themselves are not important and are indeed within the purview of ecclesiastical authority. Melanchthon even added his own example of a beneficial alteration made by the Church over against Paul’s admonition that women should keep their heads covered at worship.50 Bishops were right to make these changes out of a concern for good order. For Melanchthon, what is at issue is not a question of the Church’s authority to establish canons and interpret Scripture, but rather what people are taught concerning that authority ; such authority is not without limits. A canon, ordinance, or rite established for the sake of good order is essential.51 It does not follow, however, that the Church has a right to claim that one may earn satisfaction for sins or merit based on following those rules. If so, “the honor of Christ’s merit is slandered when we take it upon ourselves to earn grace through such ordinances.”52 The people have been misled to confuse the reservation of church penalties for not observing ordinances with the forgiveness of sins.53 Therefore, bishops must necessarily make rules for the proper governing of the Church, but they must not do so to burden consciences or act contrary to the gospel. For, “the chief article of the gospel must be maintained, that we obtain the grace of God through faith in Christ without our merit and do not earn it through service of God instituted by human beings.”54 In article twenty-eight of the Apology (1531), he reaffirmed his previous argument. Later in the Apology, Melanchthon pointedly seized on the fact that the authors of the Confutation to the Augsburg Confession were more interested in protecting the legal privileges granted to the Church than discussing the proper responsibilities of the clergy.55

4.1

On the Power of the Papacy

Six years later, Melanchthon made similar arguments against the universal primacy of the pope (Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 1537). The document was written within the context of preparations for the church council 49 50 51 52 53

BSLK, 125 – 26; BC, 94 – 96. BSLK, 129 – 30; BC, 98 – 100. BSLK, 129 – 30; BC, 98 – 100. BSLK, 126; BC, 96. BSLK, 127; BC, 96. In particular, the Evangelicals have in mind cases in which the right to pronounce absolution for certain sins is reserved for bishops or the pope. 54 BSLK, 129; BC, 98. 55 BSLK, 396 – 97; BC, 289.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On Bishops and Councils

159

called that year by Pope Paul III to be held in Mantua (but which did not meet until 1545 in Trent). It was necessary to articulate the circumstances under which Evangelicals would be willing to participate in such a council and what authority would be ascribed to it. Melanchthon began the treatise by articulating three claims made by the papacy : the bishop of Rome is superior to all bishops and pastors, the pope claims for himself the power of both swords and thus the authority to convey secular authority, and that is necessary for salvation to believe these claims. Melanchthon responded that these claims are “false, impious, tyrannical, and ruinous to the church.”56 Melanchthon offered several biblical citations affirming that all bishops and pastors share equal authority (Luke 22:24 – 27, Matt 18:1 – 4, and John 20:21). He then pointed to the authority of Paul, which he received from Christ and independent from Peter (Gal 2: 2, 6), as well as Paul’s advice for governing the community at Corinth (1 Cor 3:4 – 8, 21 – 22). He then offered several examples from history, citing the canons of Nicaea and the testimony of Cyprian, Jerome, and pope Gregory as well as the historical testimony of the confirmation of papal elections by emperors, to show that papal primacy is neither absolute nor universal. Against the appeals to Matthew 16 by his Roman Catholic opponents, Melanchthon referred to the alternative exegesis of this passage by church fathers Origen, Ambrose, Hilary, Cyprian, and Bede.57 Most importantly, the “rock” upon which the Church is built is not Peter’s person but rather Peter’s confession of faith (and here he quotes both John Chrysostom and Hilary). This underlines Melanchthon’s consistent affirmation that the Church is built upon pure teaching and praxis. Therefore, the only authority the pope has by divine right is his duty to ensure the pure preaching of the gospel and proper administration of the sacraments within the diocese of Rome (and perhaps elsewhere) – duties in which Melanchthon claimed the papacy has manifestly failed for centuries. Melanchthon concluded his treatise, citing Jerome, that the distinction between bishop and presbyter is a human one. Therefore, Evangelical pastors could claim the right to ordain pastors, preachers, and bishops outside of the authority of Rome.58 Indeed, five years later in 1542, Nicholas von Amsdorf was installed as bishop of Naumberg-Zeitz, the first such Evangelical episcopal ordination. It is exactly during the struggles of 1537 to articulate the proper responsibilities and limits of episcopal authority (especially in light of an impending council), that we find a reference to examining Epiphanius’s account of ancient synods and a citation of Basil, testifying to the fact that possessing 56 BSLK, 471; BC, 330. 57 BSLK, 479; BC, 334. 58 BSLK, 493, 495; BC, 340, 343.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

160

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

apostolic succession is no guarantee of possessing apostolic teaching. This illustrates that Melanchthon was a conscientious student of early Christian sources. In a brief letter to Georg Spalatin, Melanchthon reported that Luther had recovered from his recent illness.59 He gave thanks to God that Luther could continue his service to the Church during this dreadful time when many vain ideas pass for true teaching. Melanchthon added that he has begun a study of Epiphanius to learn more about the ancient councils. Melanchthon bemoaned the actions of impious bishops (past and present) and quoted Basil, saying that bishops who create blasphemies are condemned by the dignity of the episcopal office.

4.2

Basil on Episcopal Oversight

In a letter from 1547, Melanchthon also extolled Basil as model for doing what bishops should: exercising oversight within his diocese to ensure that pure doctrine is being preached.60 Franciscus Dryander was a reformer in Basel. He wrote to Melanchthon reporting that he (Dryander) has visited many congregations in his region to oversee the progress of reformed preaching. Melanchthon praised him, saying that these actions brought him happiness. Melanchthon reminds Dryander that in doing so, he is following a practice well established in church history by the greatest of bishops, especially Basil.

4.3

Basil as Model for the Princes

Perhaps even more surprising is a comparison Melanchthon made between a secular prince and the generosity of Basil.61 In 1544, parts of Germany were experiencing a grain shortage and thus, food was very expensive. Prince George of Anhalt has offered to help the University of Wittenberg by selling them gain. Melanchthon thanked the prince, but suggested that the prince lower the price and thus ease the burden on the people. As incentive, he urged the prince to emulate Basil, who divested his own funds in order to help the hungry (Basilius 59 Letter to Georg Spalatin, 17 March 1537 (MBW 1872 [T7, 388 – 89]/CR 3,329). It is possible that Melanchthon is referring to Epiphanius’s Panarion omnium haeresium. The source of the quotation from Basil is not clear. 60 Letter to Franciscus Dryander, 23 January 1547 (MBW 4567/CR 6, 372 – 73). Melanchthon provided no citation for his statement. It is likely that Melanchthon had read any one of several letters Basil had written to his chorepiscopoi and clergy offering pastoral and canonical advice; see Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 151 – 56. 61 Letter to Prince George von Anhalt, 29 October 1544 [?] (MBW 3721/CR 3, 598 – 99).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On Bishops and Councils

161

curavit frumentum aliquot civitatibus). Here, Melanchthon shows an awareness of Basil’s role not only as a bishop but also a member of a prominent and wealthy family, whose social duty it was to intervene on behalf of the less fortunate, especially in times of crisis.62 Melanchthon tells George that a prince, like a bishop, is a shepherd of the people too (nam principes, ut vocantur, ita esse pastores populorum, qui civibus benefaciant). Therefore, it is the duty of all Christians – especially those who have been entrusted with authority by God – to serve and protect the material well-being of the people over whom they have been given charge.

4.4

Gregory Nazianzen on Councils

The previous examples reveal that not every quotation of a Cappadocian Father by Melanchthon is used to elaborate a doctrinal point. In addition to being models of behavior for bishops to emulate, the Cappadocians also provided pithy aphoristic statements that Melanchthon used to reflect his own frustrations or opinions in controversial matters. That is, while not divorced from debate concerning doctrinal matters, such statements reflect the heat of the controversy rather than an attempt to clarify the doctrine in question. We can illustrate this point by examining another set of Melanchthon’s citations concerning bishops and councils. In such matters, Melanchthon often quoted Gregory Nazianzen, revealing a shared personality that, while often in the midst of theological controversies, nevertheless was quickly wearied by the vitriol and disorder that often resulted. In contrast, Melanchthon often made reference to Gregory’s dedication to true doctrine through a love of peace and tranquility ; it is as if Melanchthon ascribed Gregory’s dismissal not to cowardice but to an attempt to rise above the fray.63 The persistent pessimism in the face of theological controversy and near hysterical reaction to the ad hominem attacks that often result from the vicissitudes of intense theological debate is often ascribed to Gregory, but almost never to Melanchthon. His fondness for quoting Gregory’s disregard of synods reveals a sensitivity and complexity to Melanchthon’s personality that is lost in the myth of his serene and sagacious demeanor.64 The earliest quotation I have found of Gregory by Melanchthon is in 62 Such charity is mentioned in Gregory’s funeral oration, Oration 43 (§35 – 36). 63 Melanchthon’s oration on Gregory described him as a man of modesty, loving truth and peace over his rights and honors (CR 12, 283); therein, he cites Gregory’s letter to Procopius, 140; MPG 37, 225]. 64 The myth was created by Melanchthon’s first biographer, Joachim Camerarius, and is perpetuated in modern biographies. These are discussed and discounted in Timothy J. Wengert, “The Day Philip Melanchthon Got Mad,” Lutheran Quarterly 5 (1991): 419 – 33, esp. 419 – 20.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

162

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

1519, after the Leipzig Debate.65 In a letter to Oecolampadius, Melanchthon affirmed that theological disputes should be conducted in a peaceful manner and complained against the rudeness of Johannes Eck during the disputation. Gregory Nazianzen and Melanchthon received both the highest praise from their colleagues and endured the lowest forms of criticisms from their enemies, some of whom had recently been among those offering praise.66 In the midst of great controversy and personal animosity, Gregory had resigned as chair of the Council at Constantinople (381) and was forced to renounce his claim to the patriarchate of that city. Just a year later, however, Gregory received a letter from the high official Procopius, requesting his participation in another council, also to be held in Constantinople. In reply, Gregory stated emphatically that he had resolved to avoid all councils because their resolutions cause more rancor than create reconciliation.67 At least six times, Melanchthon refers to Gregory’s Letter to Procopius (Ep. 130) concerning councils. Melanchthon echoed Gregory’s reflection nearly every time Melanchthon himself was called upon to participate in a religious colloquy or disputation. The first clear reference occurred during the imperial Diet of Augsburg (1530).68 While preparing for the diet, Melanchthon wrote to 65 The letter to Johannes Oecolampadius was published as the Epistola de Lipsica disputatione, 21 July 1519 (MBW 59 [MBWT 1, 132 – 41]). Interestingly, there is a favorable comparison between Gregory and Erasmus (136). Meijering suggests that this might be a general reference to Gregory’s letter to Procopius; see Patristic Thought, 84 n. 334. I think it is more likely that, given that the quotation is more a reflection of Gregory’s personality than a criticism of bishops, it could have been taken from any number of sources about (rather than by) Gregory, perhaps through the Suida, florilegia, or even a reference found in one of Erasmus’s works. 66 John McGuckin writes, “In the great capital of Byzantium, within the space of a single year, [Gregory] had been hailed by an influential part of the aristocracy as the hero and restorer of Christianity, and then at the very height of his honor, denounced and ridiculed as the silly old bumpkin whose incompetence had demonstrated his unfitness for office. He had even been ridiculed by mummers on the stage at Constantinople in a farce that had brought the house down with laughter”; see McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2001), 1. 67 See the Letter to Procopius, Ep. 130, “For my part, if I am to write the truth, my inclination is to avoid all assemblies of bishops, because I have never seen any council come to a good end, nor turn out to be a solution of evils. On the contrary, it usually increases them. You always find there love of contention and love of power (I hope you do not think me a bore for writing like this), which beggar description; and, while sitting in judgment over others, a man might well be convicted of ill-doing himself long before he should put down the ill-doing of his opponents. So, I retire into myself; and came to the conclusion that the only security for one’s soul lies in keeping quiet. Now, moreover, this determination of mine is supported by illhealth; for I am always on the point of breathing my last, and am hardly able to employ myself to any effect”; English translation from J. Stevenson, ed., Creeds, Councils, and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church, AD 337 – 461 (Cambridge: SPCK, 1991), 118 – 19. 68 Letter to Joachim Camerarius 1 September 1530 (MBW 1057 [T4/2, 625 – 26]/CR 2, 337). The

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On Bishops and Councils

163

Camerarius requesting a volume of Gregory’s letters. A few days after receiving the volume, Melanchthon wrote again to Camerarius, providing the quotation of Gregory’s invective in Greek and Latin, and expressed his own doubts over the success of the dialogue. This negative evaluation of councils was repeated in three subsequent letters. In a letter dated 1552, Melanchthon responded to a letter from Thomas Matthias, an advisor to the Elector of Brandenburg.69 Matthias had requested Melanchthon’s presence at a synod to judge in the Christological controversy between Stancarius and Musculus. Melanchthon declined but justified his decision by explaining that he is not fleeing synods (like Gregory) but that Emperor Charles V’s most recent pledge to grant legal toleration to the churches of the Augsburg Confession necessitated his presence with the theologians in Leipzig.70 It is also interesting that this quotation appears in the context of the chaos during the second session of the Council of Trent (which included some observers from German Protestant territories). In a subsequent letter dated 1554, Melanchthon wrote to Georg Fabricius, a close friend and director of the prestigious St. Afra Latin school in Meissen.71 The context of the letter is not clear. Melanchthon began with a reference to Gregory’s letter to Procopius and then acknowledges the receipt of a prior letter from Fabricius. Melanchthon assured Fabricius that he has shown it to many learned and pious men, but would not address the matter publicly (that is, in a letter) but would wait until they could speak in person. The final example is from a letter in response to Elector August of Saxony’s decision to form a new Protestant alliance, as a result of the Peace of Augsburg (1555).72 Such alliances were based on mutual affirmations of a common confession of faith. Melanchthon urged the representatives to adhere to the Augsburg Confession and not to engage in further disputes, especially over the Eucharist, the freedom of the will,

69 70

71 72

quotation was repeated in another letter, to Johannes Silberborner, written around the same time; see Epistola de coventu Augustano (MBW 1093 [T4/2, 726 – 27]/CR 2, 240 – 434). Letter to Thomas Matthias in Berlin, 3 October 1552 (MBW 6581/CR 7, 1089 – 90). Moritz had now turned against the emperor and refused to enforce the Augsburg Interim. Without Moritz’s support, the emperor lost control over the southeastern territories and was forced to sign the Treaty of Passau, which reinstated the legal rights of those who adhered to the Augsburg Confession. This event foreshadowed the Peace of Augsburg (1555), which made the legal toleration of Lutheranism permanent throughout the Empire. An English translation of the “Augsburg Interim” is available in Kolb, Sources and Contexts, 144 – 82. Letter to Georg Fabricius 27 April [1554] (MBW 7159/CR 7, 768). Recommendation for the Prince August of Saxony [Wittenberg] 18 December 1559 (MBW 9168/CR 9, 986 – 93). In the section of the recommendation dealing with the proposed synod, Melanchthon raised several practical concerns: he pointed out the reluctance of the princes; he asked who would lead the synod; and he raised the warning that the only thing synods seemed to create with any success are anti-synods (989).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

164

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

and adiaphora. He used the quotation of Gregory as a warning of what can happen when participants pursue petty doctrinal differences.

5.

Melanchthon on Basil’s Confrontation with the Emperor

Related to Melanchthon’s citation of Gregory concerning councils, we also find quotations of Gregory and Basil, expressing a desire to remain firm but gentle in the face of adversity as well as the ability to forgive one’s enemies. Most of these occur in reference to intra-Lutheran debates, and so will be discussed in a subsequent chapter. One set of quotations is worth noting here, however; namely, when Melanchthon refers to Basil’s confrontations with the emperor Valens. Melanchthon sees Basil’s humble but forceful demeanor as a model for his own confrontation with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1546, Charles V finally exercised the long-threatened military option against the Protestant estates. Having anticipated such an outcome, they had formed a defensive league in 1531 at Schmalkald. Membership was based on subscription to the Augsburg Confession. Originally an alliance between Philip of Hesse and John Frederick of Saxony, the “Schmalkaldic League” grew to include the territories of the Palatinate, Württemberg, Anhalt, and Brandenburg, along with the cities of Frankfurt am Main, Augsburg, Hamburg, and Hanover. Though long prepared for the outbreak of war, the armies of the Schmalkaldic League suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg, 24 April 1547. The emperor’s victory had many serious repercussions. Both Elector John Frederick of Saxony and Philip of Hesse were imprisoned. John Frederick lost the Electoral title and tracts of territory to his cousin Moritz, a Lutheran who supported Charles; Moritz was also Philip’s son-in-law. The military victory paved the way for theological changes and the emperor sought to repeal nearly all of the doctrinal and liturgical reforms. After an eight-month exile, Melanchthon returned to Saxony. By July 1547, his new lord, Moritz, required the presence of Melanchthon, Major, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, and other Wittenberg professors at the legislative assembly in Leipzig. In May 1548, the Emperor Charles imposed the “Augsburg Interim,” which reinstated many former practices (though Protestants were allowed to retain the chalice during Communion and clergy who had married were not forced to abandon their wives). The future of the Evangelical cause in the Empire was by no means clear : how strictly were the provisions of the Interim going to be enforced by the occupying imperial troops? Further, the University of Wittenberg had been closed as a result of the war and was not on solid financial footing.73 Some Protestant theologians (such as Martin Bucer) 73 See Scheible, Melanchthon, 173, 176 – 79, 181.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

165

On Monasticism

fled the Empire. Others, such Nicholas von Amsdorf and Matthias Flacius, wrote vehemently against the Interim from Magdeburg, which was under siege by Moritz for its failure to capitulate. Moritz attempted to gain certain exemptions from the Augsburg Interim through his own plan, later called the Leipzig Interim. Charles V had finally gained the upper hand against the Evangelicals. During this uncertainty, we find evidence that Melanchthon recalled Basil’s own reactions to imperial interference in religious matters. Melanchthon knew well the story of Basil’s confrontation with the imperial prefect and the emperor Valens. In two letters dated 3 February 1547 (the feast day of St. Basil), Melanchthon wrote to two friends. The first letter is to Veit Deitrich. Melanchthon awaits news from him concerning Charles V’s military campaign along the Rhine. He closed his letter by noting the significance of the date, as Basil was well acquainted with “imperial roughness” but nonetheless remained steadfast in faith.74 The second letter concluded in a similar manner, but with a phrase in Greek.75 Melanchthon appealed to Basil as a model of humble resistance and discrete steadfastness in faith against imperial censure.

6.

On Monasticism

The history of monasticism under Continental Protestantism has been only partially documented. In contrast to the situation in England (where reform was guided by a central authority), the Reformation on the continent was led by the various territorial leaders. Each responded to the question of monasteries, the expulsion of monks and nuns, and the confiscation of property (or what to do with abandoned properties), in a different manner according to the desire of the secular ruler and the theological orientation of his advisors (i. e., Reformed or Lutheran). The fate of monasteries in Protestant territories had as much to do with legal privileges as it did with theological convictions.76 In territories more zealous for reform (such as Hesse), monasteries were forcibly closed, their property confiscated, and endowments seized. In other territories (such as Saxony), monasteries were allowed to continue as long as they embraced Evangelical theology and did not forbid anyone to leave. Those who refused to accept the Reformation were either closed or allowed to continue but forbidden to accept new novices. This was the compromise reached between 74 Letter to Veit Dietrich 3 February 1547 (MBW 4578/CR 6, 583 – 84). 75 Letter to Johannes Lindemann 3 February 1547 (MBW 4579/CR 6, 380). A final reference, occurring much later, is an announcement given by Melanchthon on the Feast of St. Basil; see Academicis, 3 February 1558 (CR 9, 442). 76 See Christopher Ocker, Church Robbers and Reformers in Germany, 1525 – 1547: Confiscation and Religious Purpose in the Holy Roman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

166

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

Melanchthon and Abbess Caritas Pirckheimer in Nuremberg. Some that were closed were turned into schools (gymnasiums), such as St. Aegidius of Nuremberg (originally founded as a Scottish rite cloister in 1140). And of course, the house of the Augustinian Friars at Wittenberg was given to Luther by the Elector as his home, wherein Luther raised a family and boarded several students and refugees. There is nothing within the theology of Lutheranism that forbids the practice of monasticism. That is, while Lutheran writings are full of vitriolic criticism of medieval monastic practices, there is nothing mutually exclusive between monasticism and Lutheranism. In the Wittenberg Articles (1536), Luther testified “If certain persons of outstanding character, capable of living a life under a rule, feel a desire to pass their lives in the cloister, we do not wish to forbid them, so long as their doctrine and worship remain pure.”77 For Melanchthon, the issue was to restore the original practices of monasticism to the Church. He found in Basil a good example of monasteries as schools of biblical studies and charity. Melanchthon was not embarrassed when his opponents pointed out that one of his most important authorities was himself the author of a monastic rule. Rather, Melanchthon appealed to Basil’s original intent for a monastic community and claimed (quite correctly) that much of the Asceticon read in the previous centuries was the product of later additions. Basil is often mentioned in conjunction with the necessity of educational institutions within the Church, though in these cases it is not Basil’s monastic houses but rather his apostolic authority that are highlighted. However, the two clearest rebuttals to claim Basil as an authority in support of the medieval practice of monasticism are found in Melanchthon’s direct appeals to Basil’s original intention.78 We may ask how Melanchthon envisioned Basil’s monastic institutions? The answer arises by examining Lutheran criticisms of monasticism. Lutheranism was more concerned with correcting the perceived abuses of monasticism than with eradicating it from the Church since, in at least their original form, monasteries were beneficial. The main complaints against monasticism are chronicled in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. The Confessions do not deny that some individuals have the gift of celibacy and may live a life pleasing to God according to the monastic rule of a community. However, these individuals are special cases and do not represent the condition of a vast majority of people. In 77 English translation found in Weisner-Hanks, Convents, 17; see Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus, vol. 2 (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1905), 75. 78 The first is found in De Ecclesia et de Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 617). A curt explanation is found later in the Loci of 1543 (CR 21, 838). These two passages are examples of what Fraenkel calls Melanchthon “critical apology” of patristic sources, see Fraenkel, Testimonia, 296. The reception of Basil’s rules and the formation of the Asceticon is outlined in Rousseau, Basil, 354 – 59.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

167

On Monasticism

particular, Article twenty-seven of the Augsburg Confession is concerned with three main issues: those who were compelled to enter or remain within the monastery, those who consider the monastic life higher than the married state, and those who argue that the monastic life merits grace equal to baptism. Let us first consider those who were compelled to enter the monastery. Melanchthon lists the cases of children who were forced into the monastic life as the most despicable. “Boys and girls [were] thrust into monasteries for the sake of survival,” which resulted in scandals and “snares were laid for consciences.”79 Melanchthon adds that by accepting children into the monastic life and compelling them (through conscience or by force) was tolerated though “the authority of the canons was completely neglected and despised.” Note that Melanchthon’s biggest complaint at this point is that the laws of the Church have been ignored. Even when people of an age of consent entered the monastery, problems persisted.80 Many entered with all earnestness and sincerity to embrace poverty, chastity and obedience, only to find that they did not have the gift, “even though they were old enough, they could not assess their own strength.”81 In such cases, charity and compassion demand that such an individual be allowed to leave the monastery. Melanchthon noted that some were allowed to leave the monastery for sake of political peace; how much more so should allowance be made for a troubled conscience?82 Instead, many were compelled to remain, convinced it was a sin to abandon the monastic life. For Melanchthon, this was the most insidious aspect of monasticism, as the belief that the monastic life was holier than any other vocation was based on two lies: that the celibate life is higher than the married life and that the monastic life is higher than all other vocations. Thus, Melanchthon claimed, “the precepts of God and true worship of God are obscured when people hear that only monks are in a state of perfection . . . . They hear celibacy praised without restraint, and so they live in marriage with a troubled conscience.”83 However, a vow, given in ignorance, cannot abrogate the command of God. That 79 BSLK, 110; BC, 83. 80 BSLK 115, BC, 87. Melanchthon noted that the canons differ on the age of consent, some say fifteen and some say eighteen. He adds “but whether we accept one age or the other, the overwhelming majority have an excuse to leave the monastery since many took vows before they reached such an age.” Also worthy of note is Melanchthon’s awareness that the situation was more difficult for nuns, since they had far fewer options if they left the monastery (BSLK, 110; BC, 83). 81 BSLK, 110; BC, 83. 82 BSLK 114, BC, 84. The Confession cited the example of king Ramino II of Aragon, a monk whose brother died without any heirs and so Ramino was absolved of his vows for the sake of the royal dynasty. The German version adds an element to make the case more poignantly : “If, then, dispensation were granted for the maintenance of temporal interests, how much more fairly should dispensation be granted for the sake of the souls’ needs.” 83 BSLK, 118; BC, 89.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

168

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

is, those who do not have the gift of celibacy should be released from their vows, without shame, so that they may fulfill the command of God to marry, as Paul clearly affirms (1 Cor. 7:2). “Consequently,” he concludes, “those who comply with this command and institution of God do not sin.”84 Further, Melanchthon counters the claim that the monastic life is higher to all other vocations. He writes, “[the people] hear only mendicants are perfect, and so they keep their possessions or engage in business with a troubled conscience.”85 Melanchthon argues that a life truly pleasing to God is one that consists in living in the fear and love of God with an abiding trust in His promise of salvation and grace. This is true regardless of one’s vocation: call upon and expect with certainty help from God in all things that are to be borne in connection with our calling; and, in the meantime, diligently to do good works for others and to serve our calling. True perfection and true worship of God consist in all these things, not in celibacy, mendicancy, or shabby clothing.86

In addition to a certain understanding of vocation, the principle underlying this argument is a rejection of the distinction between evangelical counsels and precepts. The denial is briefly referenced in the Confession, but is more clearly stated in other works.87 For Melanchthon, all Christians are called to embrace poverty, chastity, and obedience. Finally, Melanchthon attacked the idea (found in Thomas Aquinas and others) that the monastic life is equal to baptism and, by embracing the monastic life, one can merit forgiveness of sins.88 Thereby, people are encouraged not to rely upon God’s grace but to boast of their own merits. “Those who want to be justified by vows,” Melanchthon stated, “ascribe to their own works what properly belongs to the glory of Christ. . . . In fact, they add greater absurdities to this when they boasted that they could transfer their works to others. . . . Is this not ascribing justification to works?”89 It should be stated that a conscientious monk might indeed ascribe his ascetic perseverance to the grace of Christ alone.90 This, however, is not the focus of Melanchthon’s criticism. Rather, he is engaging a system of preaching and popular understanding. 84 85 86 87

BSLK, 113; BC, 85. BSLK, 118; BC, 89. BSLK, 118; BC, 89. BSLK, 113, BC, 83. The Confession mentioned the faulty understanding of evangelical counsels are a significant reason for this problem; see the Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 719; Preus, 74). 88 The comparison of monastic profession and baptism was common in the Middle Ages, BSLK 112, note 1; BC 82, note 186. See for example Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2, q. 189, a. 3 ad 3, ‘It may reasonably be said that through entering a religious order a person attains remission of all sins . . . wherefore it is read in the Lives of the Fathers that those entering a religious order attain the same grace as the baptized.” 89 BSLK, 118; BC, 89. 90 This is stated clearly by Melanchthon in the Apology, “To be sure, we are not blaming all

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

169

Given all that has been said before, it is remarkable that the remedy Melanchthon proposed was not the abolition of monasticism, but rather its reform. Melanchthon wants to see monasteries returned to their original purpose, “In former times, they were schools of Holy Scripture and of other subjects useful to the church; bishops and pastors were taken from there. Now, everything is different.”91 This is an argument we have examined before. Though Basil is not mentioned in this section of the Augsburg Confession, this summary echoes what Melanchthon had said repeatedly in other places. Though he laments the current state of monasteries, Melanchthon affirmed that the future value of monasticism lies in returning to its origins; and there is no clearer guide than the example of St. Basil.92

7.

On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

The Eucharistic controversies of the sixteenth century centered around the doctrines of the nature of Christ’s presence in the elements and the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The patristic testimony concerning the Eucharist consists of oblique references (i. e., there are no Eucharistic treatises until the ninth century) and what could be found was inconclusive for the interests of the sixteenth century. Therefore, the controversialists turned to the liturgies of the early Church for their testimony, accepting the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. The study of these liturgies was often polemical in nature; i. e., used to support either a medieval, Evangelical, or Reformed liturgy. Many “Erasmian” Reform Catholics were also involved in liturgical studies, the most prominent being Elector-Archbishop Hermann von Wied of Cologne and George Cassander.93 monks. We think that here and there good men can be found in monasteries who have a moderate opinion of these human acts of devotion and who do not approve of the cruelty that the hypocrites among them display” (BSLK, 379; BC, 278). 91 BSLK, 112; BC, 83. See also the Apology (BSLK, 378; BC, 278). 92 For a list of references to Basil as a teacher, monasteries as schools, and contrasting statements between Basil’s form of monasticism and that of subsequent generations, see De Dignitate Studii Theologici, 1537 (CR 11, 326); Confessio Augustana Variata, 1540 (MSA 6, 67); Index abusuum in Ecclesia, 1541 (MBW 2715/CR 4, 530 – 51); Loci 1543 (CR 21,837 – 8/ MSA 2, 484); Confessio Saxonica, 1551 (MSA 6, 152); Oration on Nazianzen, 1558 (CR 11, 683); and the Postilla Melanchthonis, n.d. (CR 24, 358). 93 Studies of ancient liturgies by Protestant Reformers and Roman Catholics alike were often carried out in order to justify a predetermined end such as abolition of the canon or the justification of a certain understanding of the sacrifice of the mass. In addition to such studies offered by Bucer and Oecolampadius, Roman Catholic liturgical studies were undertaken by Thomas Murner (1469 – 1531), Hieronymus Emser (1478 – 1526), Johann Cochlaeus (1479 – 1552), Johann Eck (1486 – 1543), and Cardinal Cajetan (1469 – 1534). The formation of a Reform Catholic liturgy based on these patristic liturgies was undertaken by

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

170

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

The bulk of historical liturgical research was led by Georg Witzel (1501 – 1573). He, most often in dialogue with Martin Bucer, attempted to justify reform efforts and guide them according to patristic study.94 In several works, most notably his Typus Ecclesiae Prioris (1540; with five subsequent revisions), Witzel provided historical examples of liturgical praxis from the first seven centuries. The book was an invaluable source to all interested in the history of Christian liturgy and was unparalleled for its scholarship at the time.95 Tracing the knowledge of the Byzantine liturgies of Basil and John Chrysostom in western Europe from the Schism (1054) up to the sixteenth century has not yet been accomplished. The work of Hieronymus Engberding testifies to a fairly healthy manuscript tradition of both the full liturgies and excerpts of the Eucharistic prayers.96 Certainly, a more thorough knowledge of the Byzantine liturgy resulted from the influence of Byzantine scholars in Italy after the fall of Constantinople.97 In 1539, the Erasmus’s Latin translation of The Divine Liturgy

94

95 96

97

Elector-Archbishop Hermann von Wied of Cologne (1477 – 1552), Johannes Gropper (1503 – 1559), George Cassander (1513 – 1566), and George Witzel (1501 – 1573). See John P. Dolan, The Influence of Erasmus, Witzel, and Cassander in the Church Ordinances and Reform Proposals of the United Duchees of Cleves during the Middle Decades of the Sixteenth Century (Münster : Aschendorf, 1958). Among the Evangelicals, one should note the Kirchenordnungen composed by Johannes Bugenhagen (Brunswick, 1524; Hamburg, 1529; Lübeck, 1531; Pomerania, 1535; Denmark, 1537; Schleswig-Holstein, 1542; and Hildesheim, 1544), Justus Jonas (Wittenberg, 1533; Ducal Saxony, 1539), Philipp Melanchthon (with Johannes Aurifaber and Johann Riebling, Mecklenberg, 1540; with Bucer, Cologne, 1543), and Johannes Brenz and Andreas Osiander (Brandenburg-Nuremberg, 1533). For a description of these Evangelical liturgies, see Frank Senn, The Christian Liturgy : Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 323 – 356. For Melanchthon’s involvement with Bucer in the liturgical reform at Cologne, see Scheible, “Melanchthon und Bucer,” Melanchthon und die Reformation: Forschungsbeiträge (Mainz: von Zabern, 1996), 263 – 64. Most notable are his efforts in Leipzig (1539) and the Colloquy at Regensburg (1541) and the Diet of Speyer (1544). Though certainly always willing to dialogue with Reform Catholics, Melanchthon’s behavior at these colloquies show that he has not deserved his reputation as an overzealous compromiser, see Scheible, “Melanchthons Auseinandersetzung mit dem Reformkatholizismus,” Melanchthon und die Reformation, 222 – 44. For an informative collection of essays on the religious dialogues of the 1530s and 1540s, see Gerhard Müller, ed., Die Religionsgespäche der Reformationszeit (Gerd Mohn: Güttersloh, 1980). John P. Dolan, “Liturgical Reform among the Irenicists,” Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, vol. 2 (January 1971): 72 – 94. P. Hieronymus Engberding, Das Eucharistische Hochgebet der Basileiosliturgie: Textgeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Kritische Ausgabe (Münster : Aschendorff, 1931). This conclusion is also supported by Strittmatter, who suggests that a knowledge of the Byzantine liturgy, in Latin translations, was common in southern Italy and as a result of the Crusades; see Anselm Strittmatter, “Missa Graecorum, Missa Sancti Iohannis Crisostomi: The Oldest Latin Version Known of the Byzantine Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom,” Traditio (1941): 79 – 91, esp. 85. As of this time, Paul Fedwick has not published the results of his study of the reception of Basil’s liturgy. For example, an editio princeps of the Liturgy of St. Basil in Greek was published 1526 (Rome: D. Dukas); see Engberding, Das Eucharistische Hochgebet, 31.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

171

of St. John Chrysostom was published by Froben.98 In 1540, Witzel discovered a Greek manuscript of the Liturgy of St. Basil in the monastery of Johannesberg in Rheingau and he published the work in Mainz, 1546.99 Likewise, in 1549, Johannes Cochlaeus published a Latin translation of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom he discovered in manuscript form, also in a monastery on the Rhine.100

7.1

The Liturgies of Sts. Basil and John Chrysostom

What are known as The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil are the two primary liturgical texts of the eastern Orthodox churches.101 The origin of each liturgy, as well as how much of each liturgy can be ascribed to their attributed author, is a matter of some debate.102 Both liturgies are clearly the result of liturgical reforms initiated by Basil and John Chrysostom for use within their own diocese that were then adopted by others. Though we speak of two different liturgies, “the ceremonial and public prayers of the two liturgies are practically identical, but the private prayers of the priest are considerably longer in the Liturgy of St. Basil.”103 These two liturgies took center stage in the liturgical and Eucharistic debates of the sixteenth century.104 The authority of the author was paramount. The canon of both liturgies was carefully examined for its understanding of sacrifice, the mode of Christ’s presence, and 98 See the Opera of John Chrysostom, VD16 J400; subsequent editions of the liturgy in Latin and translations into German are listed J478 – 482. 99 See VD16 B709. The work was also included in a subsequent edition of other ancient liturgies (including an Ethiopian liturgy) by Witzel in 1555 (Mainz), see VD16 B710. 100 Noted in Strittmatter, “Missa Graecorum,” 81. Stittmatter cites Jean Michel Hanssens, Institutiones Liturgicae de Ritibus Orientalibus, v. 1 – 3 (Rome: Pont. Universitatis Gregorianae, 1930 – 1932). 101 The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (CPG §4686) is the primary liturgy of the Orthodox churches, as it is most often used throughout the year. The liturgy of St. Basil (CPG §2905) is used at ten appointed times: the six Sundays of Lent (except Palm Sunday), Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, the vigils of Christmas and the Epiphany, and the feast of St. Basil. 102 The scholarly literature surrounding the extent to which Basil can be credited with the liturgy that bears his name is discussed in George S. Bebis, “Introduction to the Liturgical Theology of St. Basil the Great,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997): 273 – 85, esp. 273 – 75. A similar study is offered by Cyprian Robert Hutcheon, “A Sacrifice of Praise: A Theological Analysis of the Pre-Sanctus of the Byzantine Anaphora of St. Basil,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45 (2001): 2 – 23; see esp. 4 – 6. 103 The Byzantine Liturgy : A New English Translation of the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great (New York: The Russian Center of Fordham University, 1956), 2. 104 Establishing whether or not Basil was the author of the liturgy (especially the Eucharistic canon) was the crux of the debate between Bucer and Gropper in the Cologne reform effort; see Nick Thompson, “Martin Bucer’s Assessment of the Canon of the Mass in the Eve of the Religious Colloquies,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 3 (June/Dec 2001): 51 – 77, esp. 63.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

172

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

the invocation of the saints. Further, the knowledge that the Liturgy of St. Basil (as well as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) continued to be used in the Orthodox churches gave these debates an ecumenical as well as historical dimension. First, because the Liturgy of Basil was ancient and its authorship unquestioned, it was universally accepted as an authority. Second, by appealing to Basil’s liturgy, the Reformers who studied the text could argue that they were neither introducing new ceremonies nor abandoning essential ones. Finally, the knowledge that the liturgy remained in use in the Orthodox churches not only allowed the Reformers to justify their own “catholicity” and also allowed them to levy a charge against the Roman church for liturgical and doctrinal innovation.

7.2

Melanchthon’s Appeals to the Greek Canon

Melanchthon’s general views on the mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist are discussed in another chapter. Here, I will note Melanchthon’s specific references to the Liturgy of St. Basil in order to support his understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice. It will be seen that Melanchthon’s criticism of private masses is inexorably tied to his criticism of certain understandings of the Mass as a sacrifice. There are at least four references in Melanchthon’s writings, two of which occur in the immediate context of religious colloquies with Roman Catholics. Aided by references to the two Greek liturgies, Melanchthon contributed to the debate by shifting the emphasis of the sacrificial character of the Mass away from the medieval emphasis on the bloodless oblation of Christ offered to God by the priest at the altar and toward a sacrifice of praise – i. e., a Eucharist – offered by the priest and the entire assembly in thanksgiving for the grace conferred by Christ’s sacramental presence. By the late 1520s/early 1530s, Melanchthon indicated an awareness that two liturgies – that of John Chrysostom and Basil – existed. Specific references to these liturgies during this time period, however, indicate that, until the late 1530s or early 1540s, Melanchthon had access only to the liturgy attributed to John Chrysostom.105 In article twenty-four of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon outlined the Evangelical criticisms of the Roman Mass; or better, the abuses concerning the Mass that the medieval Church had tolerated or fostered. The initial criticism is that the Mass has been turned into a fair, with people buying and selling Masses to either earn merit or to placate divine wrath on behalf of those deceased.106 105 Manuscript excerpts from both the liturgy of St. John Crysostom and St. Basil were obtained by Elector Frederick from Venice; see MBW 1099 [T4/2, 741]. These manuscripts are not listed in Kusukawa’s Wittenberg Library Catalogue. 106 BSLK, 92; BC, 68. Melanchthon added that Evangelicals were not the first to make such

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

173

Melanchthon concluded this introductory section with a citation of 1 Cor 11:27, informing the reader that in Evangelical parishes priests are reminded of the terrible responsibility imposed on them to celebrate the Mass only according to Christ’s intentions. The root cause of the traffic in Masses (both public and private) was a distortion of the purpose of the Mass, namely “the teaching that our Lord Jesus Christ had made satisfaction by his death only for original sin and had instituted the Mass as a sacrifice for other sin.”107 To counter this assertion, Melanchthon offered three rebuttals.108 First, he cited the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 9:28; 10:10, 14) to affirm that there has only been one sacrifice for sin. The sacrifice of Christ’s death was sufficient for the absolution of all sin, whether original sin or subsequent sins. Any assertion to the contrary is a heretical novelty, contrary to the clear testimony of Scripture. Second, Melanchthon reminded his readers that we obtain grace only through faith in the works of Christ and not by faith in our own merits. Those who promote the idea that the Mass is necessary in order to absolve subsequent sins have turned the Mass into a work by which we vainly seek to earn God’s favor. The result is that the gracious gift of the Mass has been turned into an odious work. Fundamentally speaking, the Mass is not something the priest does for the people but rather something God does for the whole Church. Third, and closely related, those who consider the Mass necessary for the expiation of sin have denied themselves the gracious message of the Mass. The Mass is not a compulsion but rather a celebration of what God has already done for humanity : “the holy sacrament was not instituted to provide a sacrifice for sin – for the sacrifice has already occurred – but to awaken our faith and comfort our consciences. The sacrament makes them aware that they are promised grace and forgiveness of sin by Christ.”109 In concluding this section on the Mass, Melanchthon offered a few historical testimonies to show that the Evangelicals celebrate the Mass “as it was observed formally in the churches.”110 Overall, Melanchthon claimed that very little had changed according to the form and frequency in which the traditional Mass was celebrated. He cited a sermon from John Chrysostom in reference to the fact that pastoral oversight of the Mass is maintained, in which the repentant are invited to receive the sacrament and the unrepentant forbidden. He also cited the canons of Nicaea to show that only one priest may celebrate the Mass. Finally, he cited the example of the churches in Alexandria as recorded in the Historia tripartita

107 108 109 110

criticisms since “such misuse was repeatedly rebuked by learned and upright people – even before our time.” The apparatus names Nicholas of Cusa, John Tauler, John Gerson, and Gabriel Biel as examples. BSLK, 93; BC, 68. BSLK, 93 – 94; BC, 70. BSLK, 94; BC, 70. BSLK, 95; BC, 73.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

174

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

to show that a Mass need not be celebrated daily, since on Wednesdays and Fridays the custom of that church was to instruct the people in sacred Scripture.111 These testimonies, however, were not enough to convince the authors of the Confutation to the Augsburg Confession.112 Overall, this article is itself rich in biblical citations and patristic references. In particular, however, it offered a twofold response: concede that certain abuses of the Mass were extant but then quickly move to correct the affirmations made in the Augsburg Confession.113 The heart of this article is a defense for understanding the Mass as a sacrifice. A significant aspect of this defense is an examination of terms; namely, the Mass, memorial, and liturgy.114 The article condemned the Evangelicals for denying that Christ is offered in the Mass and equated them with the Arians as condemned by Augustine.115 The article continued with a lengthy discussion of the sacrifices offered by the priesthood of the Old Testament, which has now been superseded and perfected by the one sacrifice of Christ. They argued that the Evangelical citation of Hebrews 10:10 did not contradict their position, since it is by this one sacrifice of Christ on the cross that all of the sacraments receive their power. That one bloody sacrifice on the cross is contrasted with the multiple bloodless sacrifices that are offered every day by the clergy. The purpose of the article is to insist on the validity of the term “sacrifice” to describe the Mass, while also insisting that the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass is bloodless and without violence; it is not a resacrifice of Christ but rather it is a re-presentation of that one sacrifice. The argument in favor of retaining the language of the Mass as a sacrifice concluded with an affirmation that would have far reaching consequences: “That already in the early church the Mass was known as a sacrifice is testified to by a number of holy fathers. . . . Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Basil, Hilary, and others teach and testify that this was so, but we omit their words for the sake of brevity.”116 111 The references are to Chrysostom’s Homily on Ephesians 3 (MPG 62:29), canon 18 of the Council of Nicaea, and book 9 of Cassiodorus’s Historia tripartita as recorded in Socrates’s Ecclesiastical History V, 22 (MPG 67:635 – 40). 112 See Article 24 of the “Confutation of the Augsburg Confession,” Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 127 – 31. 113 Confutation allowed that certain abuses of the Mass had occurred; among them, belief that the Mass was offered as expiation for sin; Article 24, “Confutation,” 128. 114 The first reference to the nature of the Mass as a memorial is placed towards the beginning of the article. This definition occurs within the context of criticizing the Evangelical practice of translating some parts of the Mass into German; Article 24, Confutation, 127 & 130. 115 “Confutation,” 128; note 76 identifies the reference as Augustine, De haeresibus 53 (MPL 42:40). 116 “Confutation,” 130. No indication, whether in the text itself or the apparatus, is given as to

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

175

Article twenty-four of the Confutation introduced two aspects to the Eucharistic debate between Evangelicals and those loyal to Rome that would push the participants into newer arenas. First, the debate would now begin to center around the ancient terms used to describe the Mass. This in turn led to the second aspect, which was a conscientious examination of historical sources, particularly the Eucharistic prayers used by the early Church. Immediately, Melanchthon was eager to challenge the Confutation’s claim that the early Church understood the Mass as a sacrifice in the same manner they presented. The first reference to the Liturgy of St. Basil dates from 1530, immediately after the imperial Diet and the presentation of the first draft of the Apology (a response to the Confutation). Article twenty-four of the Apology has a lengthy section concerning the meaning of the word sacrifice, but the exact details need not detain us here.117 The article can be summed up in two passages. First, Melanchthon argued that “no matter how long their list of authorities, reasons, and testimonies may be, it still does not prove that the Mass confers grace ex opere operato. . . . This single response overthrows all the opponents’ objections not only in the Confutation but in all the writings that they have published about the Mass.”118 Here we see again the fact that Melanchthon is not a historical positivist. Even if the Roman party could produce legions of patristic, medieval, and canon law sources affirming their understanding of the Mass as a bloodless re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, it would not validate their understanding. He reaffirmed that the grace and mercy conveyed by the Mass is not the work of the Church presented to God on the altar, but rather God’s own action, which we receive in thanksgiving and trust. Confident that the authors of the Confutation had misread the patristic testimony, Melanchthon articulated his own philological study of the patristic sources and Greek canon. Melanchthon’s second action then was to correct the impression that the Confutation could claim the patristic testimony. He continued: We are not ignorant of the fact that the Fathers called the Mass a sacrifice, but they do not mean that the Mass confers grace ex opere operato or that it merits the remission of sins, guilt, and punishment for those to whom it is applied. Where do the Fathers say which texts the authors of the Confutation had in mind. I suspect that the passages were from a collection of sentences rather than the actual treatises (and much less liturgies) in their possession given the state of research into patristic liturgies at the time. 117 Melanchthon laid the blame for the practice of private Masses, especially as a generator of income, at the feet of the mendicant orders, despite St. Francis’s own admonition against it (BSLK, 351; BC, 258 – 59). The kind of sacrifice made to propitiate sin (as seen in biblical and classical sources) has already been offered by Christ on the Cross and it cannot be repeated (BSLK, 356; BC, 262). The Mass belongs to this category. 118 BSLK, 351; BC, 259.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

176

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

anything so monstrous? They clearly state that they are talking about thanksgiving, accordingly, they call it a Eucharist.119

Here we see that Melanchthon bound the discussion of the Mass more tightly to the patristic understanding of “Eucharist,” a feast of thanksgiving for having been made worthy (through God’s grace) to stand before the altar and receive the present Christ. The Apology does not mention the Liturgy of St. Basil, but there are two brief quotations taken from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: one used against the practice of private masses and the other to affirm the Mass as a “sacrifice of praise,” i. e., Eucharist.120 However, a letter written just after Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg from Augsburg reveals that he had already begun an earnest search for patristic citations that would support the Evangelical understanding.121 This letter to Veit Dietrich (1506 – 1549) indicates that Melanchthon knew of Basil’s liturgy, but did not yet have a copy. As of this date, Melanchthon had not found anything beyond his previous citation of the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom to illuminate his understanding of the Mass as a “sacrifice of praise”; indeed, the references to Basil and Chrysostom are used to counter the practice of private masses. The first explicit reference to the canon of Basil’s liturgy occurred in De Ecclesia et De Autoritate Dei Verbi (1539), six years before Witzel’s publication of the liturgy. The reference to the Basilian liturgical canon appears fairly early in the text. Melanchthon listed the errors that have arisen from a faulty understanding of divine grace and justification. Among these is the belief that the Mass has the power to make satisfaction for sins. The reference to the canon of St. Basil is clear but concise: Basil’s canon contains no understanding of the body of Christ being offered as an oblation.122 This is the singular reference to the canon within the text; the liturgy of Basil is not mentioned later under the section in which Melanchthon lists Basil’s contributions to Christian doctrine. However, other references to the ancient liturgies (especially from Cyprian and Irenaeus) are used to underline his argument against the understanding that Christ is offered as an oblation in the Mass. Melanchthon even repeated his earlier quotation of the “Greek canon,” i. e., from John Chrysostom.123 119 BSLK, 368; BC, 270. 120 BSLK, 350; BC, 258 and BSLK 373; BC, 274). Both quotations from the canon are offered in Greek. 121 Letter to Veit Dietrich who was living with Andreas Osiander, written from Wittenberg, 12 November 1530 (MBW 1099 [T4/b, 741]/CR 2,438). He goes on to mention his work on the Apology. 122 De Ecclesia et De Autoritate Dei Verbi, 601. The reference to the Basilian liturgy is paired with Ps-Dionysius (most likely chapter 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy). 123 De Ecclesia, 616.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

177

The next reference to the Liturgy of St. Basil does not occur until 1548. This is after the time of Witzel’s publication of the liturgy in Greek. Yet, we find in these two examples only a reference to the canon of Basil; nothing that would help us to discern if Melanchthon had the Greek text in front of him. The context of the reference, however, is remarkable: the year of the Augsburg Interim, which was the long-postponed result of the failure to reach concord at the imperial diet in 1530. As part of the negotiations for the restoration of previous practices in Evangelical territories, Melanchthon is again clarifying that the only sense in which the Mass may be understood as a sacrifice is as a “sacrifice of praise,” a eucharist. In a manuscript dated 3 October 1548, Melanchthon is again critical of those who interpret the Mass as a work (the particular word in question is sistere, to produce or cause to appear).124 He again insisted that this understanding of the Mass is a later corruption. As proof, he refers to the canon of St. Basil. The lack of more explicit references to the Liturgy of St. Basil is intriguing. Melanchthon has demonstrable preference for providing quotations of his Greek sources in their original languages, as he did of the “Greek canon” in the Augsburg Confession. Further, specific references to the Liturgy of St. Basil arise in the late 1530s and 1540s, which coincides with the growing availability of Greek liturgical sources in their original languages.125 Yet, two things are noteworthy. First, despite the clear impression that the liturgy of Basil (as well as Chrysostom) was available to him, he did not seem to exploit them as much as he might have; other works dealing specifically with the Eucharist composed around the time of the references seen above and later to do not mention them at all.126 He seemed to prefer citations of Cyprian, Irenaeus, Dionysius, and Chrysostom’s Homily on Ephesians. Second, though Melanchthon was aware of that two liturgies were in use, he more often referred to simply “the Greek canon.” There are several mitigating reasons for these circumstances. First, references 124 Melanchthon rejected the Augsburg Interim’s affirmation of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice in an essay dated 3 October 1548 (MBW 5315). To support his argument that such an understanding is a later, corrupted doctrine, he cited the liturgy of St. Basil. Melanchthon repeated the same line of argument in the Jüteborg document (which later became known as the Leipzig Interim), dated 16 December 1548; see CR 7, 244. There exists another letter in reference to church rites and St. Basil, dated 1549, from Antonius Corvinus (1501 – 1553) to Melanchthon, 25 September 1549 (MBW 5637 ‘ P. Tschackert, Briefwechsel des Antonius Corvinus (1900), 255 – 263 Nr. 292 [H 2872a]). 125 The Byzantine liturgy began to be printed in Venice at the close of the fifteenth century. As early as 1526, the two liturgies were published in Rome by Demetrios Doulcas. By 1531, Greek liturgical sources were being used by Olavus Petri to craft The Swedish Mass; see R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (Collegville: Liturgical Press, 1975), 200. 126 See Refutatio Abusuum Coenae Domini, 1549 (CR 23, 693 – 720) or the Examen Ordinandorum, 1554 (CR 23, 1 – 102, esp. 61 – 67).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

178

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

to Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Dionysius provided Melanchthon with older and thus more authentic sources to prove his affirmation that the Mass is not an oblation of Christ but rather a thanksgiving. These more ancient sources also allow Melanchthon to introduce other patristic terms such as liturgy, agape, and synaxis, which add complexity to how the Church has understood the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Further, this generic reference to “the Greek canon” may simply reflect the later realization that the liturgies of Basil and John Chrysostom are quite similar ; once understood, there was little need to distinguish between the two within the context of this debate. How might we evaluate Melanchthon’s claims to have Sts. Basil and John Chrysostom on his side in the liturgical debates? Clearly, Melanchthon found much that was commendable in the Greek canon and amenable to his claims. The eastern Fathers and the Byzantine tradition do not testify to the practice of private Masses, especially private Masses for the benefit of deceased individuals. Melanchthon could have even added praise to the fact that the Byzantine liturgy is often celebrated in the vernacular. His central claim is most certainly true: the Greek canon emphasizes a sacrifice of praise and does not share the same emphasis of the Roman rite that the Mass is a bloodless oblation of Christ offered by the priest for the benefit of the whole Church. The emphatic declaration that the Mass is a sacrifice of praise are most clearly seen at the prayers offered at the first Prayer of the Faithful, the Great Entrance, Eucharistic Prayer, and before receiving the Species.127 Still, we might also pose some serious questions to Melanchthon about the extent to which he can lay unmitigated claim the authority of St. Basil and the Byzantine rite. Melanchthon was aware of the fact that some aspects of the Byzantine liturgy invoked the image of a bloodless oblation being offered by the priest. For instance, Basil’s preface reads “It is truly proper and just and befitting the greatness of your holiness to praise you . . . and to offer to you with a contrite heart and a humble spirit this, our bloodless sacrifice, for you have granted to us the revelation of your truth.”128 These phrases, especially given their context, 127 The following excerpts are taken from The Byzantine Liturgy (The Russian Center, ibid.). The first Prayer of the Faithful (Basil): “Prepare us for this mystery by the power of your Holy Spirit, so that standing without fault before your holy majesty, we may offer you the sacrifice of praise” (64). The prayer at the Great Entrance (Chrysostom): “Allow these gifts to be offered to you by me, your sinful and unworthy servant. For it is really you who offer and are offered” (37). The Eucharistic Prayer (Chrysostom): “We offer you your own from what is yours, in all and for all” (46); the Eucharistic Prayer (Basil, in which he emphasizes the memorial aspect of the Mass): “And [Jesus] established for us these memorials of his saving Passion, which we have set forth according to his command” (68). The prayer before receiving the Species (Basil): “we have had this memorial of your death; we have seen a figure of your resurrection” (74). 128 The Byzantine Liturgy, 65. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom also has similar language,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

On the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

179

cannot be said to support the sacrificial understanding of the Roman rite. Especially when tied to the previous affirmations, it is more emphatically stated that God is making the sacrifice in the offering and less emphasis is placed on the priest. Nonetheless, the sacrificial language also suggests an understanding of sacrifice that is beyond (or, in addition to) the emphasis on a sacrifice of praise, as Melanchthon’s opponents knew. Beyond indications within the liturgical texts, there are also certain liturgical practices in the Byzantine rite that might have caused Melanchthon some concern. It is certain that Melanchthon never attended a Byzantine liturgy ; his knowledge comes primarily from texts and some conversations with a visiting deacon sent from Constantinople in 1558.129 In light of his own efforts to simplify the western Mass, one can only guess at what Melanchthon would have thought of the Byzantine liturgy, with its repeated processions, pre-sanctification of gifts, and silent prayers uttered by the priest. Likewise, the Evangelical efforts to encourage the more frequent reception of the Eucharist would not have fit well with the Byzantine practice at that time. Another element of Byzantine worship is the use of the Diptych, upon which are written the names of the faithful (both living and departed) for whom special intentions were made during the celebration of the Eucharist.130 What is more, Melanchthon would have found the practices of the Orthodox priest during the Consecration unacceptable, since the division and piercing of the Host with a lance underline a sacrificial understanding.131

such as in the private prayer of the priest during the Preface: “We thank you also for this sacrifice which you are pleased to receive from our hands”; and at the Epiclesis: “Moreover, we offer you this spiritual and bloodless sacrifice” (ibid. 44 and 46, respectively). 129 See George Mastrantonis, Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982), 8 – 9. David Chyträus (1530 – 1600), a former student of Melanchthon’s, oversaw the establishment of Evangelical parishes in what is today eastern Austria and western Hungary. There, he was able to observe Orthodox liturgy and praxis; see Eduard Steinwald, “Luthertum und die Orthodox Kirchen,” Lutherische Rundschau (August 1959): 146 – 165. The Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession was published in 1559 in Basel. The title page attributes the work to Paul Dolscius though he seems to have been highly indebted to Melanchthon; see Georges Florovsky, “Die griechische Übersetzung des Augsburgischen Bekentinisses,” Lutherische Rundschau (August 1959): 183 – 86. 130 See Hugh Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy : The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1990), 70 – 72. 131 See The Byzantine Liturgy, 55. It is as if the pre-consecrated Host is a figure of the corpse of Christ and the consecrated Host a figure of the Resurrected Lord. After the people have received the Elements, the Deacon exhorts, “Having seen Christ’s resurrection, let us adore the Holy Jesus Christ, who alone is without sin” (58).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

180

8.

Use of the Cappadocians against Roman Catholic Arguments

Conclusion

This chapter has examined the theological conflicts with Roman Catholics in which Melanchthon cited the Cappadocian Fathers, namely, the doctrine of justification, the power and primacy of the pope and the episcopal office, monasticism, and the sacrifice of the Mass. In considering the role of the Cappadocians in the controversy over grace, we saw that Melanchthon was most enthusiastic in citing Basil’s sermon On Humility. After 1532, when Melanchthon most likely discovered it, the sermon was referenced or quoted often as proof that the great theologian of the eastern Christian tradition supported an understanding of justification by grace through faith. This reading was seen as harmonious to the Evangelical reading of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings. Therefore, this had the effect of presenting two of the greatest pillars of Christian thought supporting the effort to reform the medieval teaching on grace. However, we also saw that despite the importance of this quote, Basil and the Cappadocians played a relatively minor role in the debates over justification and grace with Roman Catholics. In examining Melanchthon’s criticisms of the episcopal office and the papacy, we saw that he used the Cappadocians primarily as historical models from which the Church had strayed. Melanchthon consistently affirmed that the Cappadocians were highly educated men who placed their learning in service to the Church. As Christian intellectuals who fostered the clear articulation of the apostolic tradition, they did so without any supervision from the Roman pontiff. Further, in addition to their service to the intellectual life of the Church, the Cappadocians were also ecclesiastical leaders who provided their own resources to help the poor. This was to serve as a model to correct not only prince-bishops but also the secular nobles themselves. Finally, we also saw that Gregory Nazianzen in particular provided a pithy aphorism against synods and councils, one which Melanchthon repeated often. Here again we see that the Cappadocians were used not only as theologians but also as sage mentors for a man who had grown weary of theological controversy. In particular, we saw this illustrated in the frequency with which Melanchthon cited Gregory on synods. Finally, we discussed the role of the Cappadocians in Melanchthon’s criticism of both monasticism and the sacrifice of the Mass. Here, our attention focused exclusively on Basil. For Melanchthon, Basil’s monastic communities were historical models that could be used to reform medieval monastic life. Melanchthon saw in Basil’s community a free association of people who dedicated themselves to prayer and biblical studies. Melanchthon also correctly perceived that many of the monastic rules attributed to Basil were later accretions. Concerning the Mass, we saw that Melanchthon articulated the Evangelical criticisms against the “trafficking” of Masses – that private Masses were bought and sold to benefit the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

181

Conclusion

living and the dead. This corrupted the very purpose of the Mass, which was not instituted as an oblation for the satisfaction of sins but rather to proclaim the promise of grace in Christ for all who received and to comfort terrified consciences. Melanchthon turned to patristic sources and the practice of the eastern Orthodox church to show that the Roman rite had corrupted the apostolic tradition. In response, the efforts of the theologians loyal to the Roman tradition articulated their understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice. This in turn pushed the debate into discussions over the terms appropriate to understanding the Lord’s Supper. Melanchthon cited patristic sources in general and the Greek liturgies of Basil and John Chrysostom in particular to not only expand the Church’s vocabulary for describing the Sacrament (including synaxis, agape, and liturgy) but also to illumine the original understanding of the sacrifice being offered at the altar. To the first, Melanchthon focused on the description of the Mass as a Eucharist; i. e., a thanksgiving. This included not just the canon of the Mass but also the entire service (the readings, prayers, and traditional antiphons). Second, as a result of understanding the Mass primarily as a thanksgiving, the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise was contrasted to the medieval tradition. For the Evangelicals, properly speaking, the Mass was a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by a grateful and already redeemed assembly instead of a bloodless oblation offered on behalf of the community in order to appease the wrath of God.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Chapter 5: Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

Verum aluimus in sinu serpentem.1

– Philipp Melanchthon

Even though at present there is talk about the disastrous differences between Luther and Melanchthon in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, I have nevertheless been informed that both are agreed in the substance of the doctrine. For me as a layman, the matter is far too lofty to judge.2 – Elector August of Saxony, 1575

1.

Introduction

This chapter will examine Melanchthon’s citations of the Cappadocian Fathers within the general context of intra-Protestant polemics, which include his writings not only against Reformed theologians but also against certain parties who subscribed to the Augsburg Confession. These debates center around the doctrines of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and the free will that can be ascribed to human nature both of itself and as it functions “under grace.” Melanchthon had varying success using the Cappadocians in reference to these two debates. Against the Swiss Reformers, particularly Oecolampadius, Melanchthon turned to the Cappadocians for an articulation of the doctrine of the Eucharist and was disappointed. However, in articulating that a person, having been justified and aided by cooperative grace, may willingly participate in the divine grace that is offered, he found support in the Cappadocians. Of particular help were Basil’s sermon On Penance and two quotations from Gregory Nazianzen. It was for this affirmation that some Lutherans, particularly the gnesioLutherans, accused Melanchthon of deviating from Luther’s insights and re1 Truly we have nourished a snake within our bosom,” Melanchthon referring to Matthias Flacius Illyricus in a letter to Georg Frabricius, August, 1549 (MBW 5612/CR 7, 449). 2 Cited in Ernst Koch, “Striving for Union,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977): 108.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

184

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

introducing “Roman” ideas. Finally, we will examine Melanchthon’s citations of Gregory Nazianzen on forgiveness, the importance of which was highlighted by the attacks Melanchthon endured later in life. Two things are worth noting here. The first concerns the overall structure of the chapter. Our discussion will be guided by Melanchthon’s encounters with his contemporaries, to show how and when he used Cappadocian sources. Therefore, there will be less discussion of the Cappadocians here than in previous chapters. Second, as our examination of the debates concerning the Eucharist and the freedom of the will unfolds, we will see that the most noted Father used by the Evangelical movement — St. Augustine — plays a significant but complicated role. In the Eucharistic debates, the Swiss Reformers used Augustine against the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharistic presence of Christ. Melanchthon realized that Augustine alone was not a sufficient authority for the Evangelical position and had to explain away Augustine’s symbolic Eucharistic language. In the debates over the relationship of the free will under divine grace, we see that Melanchthon articulated a position harmonious with Augustine’s own late Pelagian writings. Here, Melanchthon turned to the Cappadocians and other Greek patristic authors to support and augment the Augustinian affirmation that divine grace allows the human will to participate freely in God’s renewal of the believer. In this regard, Melanchthon struggled against other Lutherans who affirmed a radical Augustinianism that denied any active role to the human will, even under the “grace of perseverance.” The study of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian vocabulary within these intra-Lutheran and intra-Protestant debates over grace, such as prevenient grace and grace unto perseverance, could be fruitful. While Melanchthon is also sometimes quite critical of Augustine, both theologians are at pains to defend the function of the free human will after and under the gift of grace. Thus, for Augustine and Melanchthon, both statements are true: all depends on the gift of grace; yet, as a result of grace (i. e., the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), human nature is revitalized and begins the process of restoring and perfecting its inclinations to seek and to love God. This position was controversial in Augustine’s own time and many — such as the monks of Hadrumetum (see De gratia et libero arbitrio and De correptione et gratia) — were tempted to see it as a contradiction. Augustine struggled to affirm the validity of his articulation of the divine and human will; so did those who came after him. Melanchthon’s debates with the Scholastics, John Agricola, Matthias Flacius, and others mirror the debates of the fifth century.3 The study of Augustine’s influence upon Melanchthon, however, is not our current discussion. Rather, it is im3 St. Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians, IV: To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence, trans. Roland J. Teske, SJ. John E. Rolle, OSA, ed. (Hyde Park: New City Press), 1999.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates

185

portant to note how Melanchthon saw Basil and Gregory Nazianzen as speaking in one accord with Augustine on the doctrine of the function of the free will under grace. The discussions of the Eucharist and the freedom of the will are two of the most hotly contested topics of Melanchthon studies. To date, much of the scholarly work on these subjects has remained determined largely by polemical literature, in which Melanchthon was judged by how well he was “true” to Luther or even “authentic” Lutheranism. In each comparison, it is always Melanchthon who is found at fault. Further, in part due to an effort to restore his reputation, Melanchthon was portrayed by others as an enthusiastic lover of peace and tranquility. Never wanting publicly to upset Luther, Melanchthon is alleged to have hid his true thoughts on various topics. Thus, he has been portrayed as a reserved but resilient crypto-Calvinist, especially in his understanding of the Eucharist. Melanchthon planted the seeds for the later harvest of pan-Protestantism.4 My work on these questions will be by no means exhaustive, but I do hope to strike at the heart of these matters by narrating the role the Cappadocian Fathers played during these debates.

2.

Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates

What will concern us most is how Melanchthon’s study of patristic sources helped form his understanding of the Eucharist: its purpose, its effects, and the sacramental action that occurs during the celebration.5 His understanding of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper is closely tied to our discussion in the previous chapter of Melanchthon’s emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, i. e., a eucharist. The sixteenth-century effort to mine patristic sources for their Eucharistic theology was complicated by two realities. First, 4 Ralph Quere has laid out how subsequent scholars have tailored Melanchthon’s works to suit their various (and conflicting) needs, see Quere, Melanchthon’s Christum Cognoscere: Christ’s Efficacious Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Melanchthon (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1977), 7. These include Melanchthon: the Methodist (C. Manschreck); the Proto-Calvinist (H. Engelland); the Father of Lutheran heterodoxy (F. Bente); the Father of Lutheran orthodoxy (J. Pelikan); the Father of Reformed orthodoxy (H. Heppe); and the Father of modern theology (K. Barth). A similar, though quite earnest, list of errors attributed to Melanchthon is provided by Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reforms (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 44. 5 I seek to show that this statement is harmonious with Ralph Quere’s thesis that Melanchthon’s understanding of the Eucharist is a direct consequence of his soteriological understanding of justification, “to know Christ is to know his benefits.” My statement, following Fraenkel, reveals that Melanchthon’s study of the Fathers undergirded his affirmation.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

186

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

there are no substantial treatises on the Eucharist until the ninth century. Second, theologians mired in the sixteenth-century Eucharistic controversies approached the patristic sources with a determined set of questions, questions in which the Fathers were simply not interested or which had not occurred to them. Melanchthon responded to these realities by framing his discussions of the Eucharist (especially the Eucharistic presence of Christ) in Christological and soteriological terms. That is, in light of the absence of patristic sources on the Eucharist, Melanchthon used the orthodox creedal formulations of the person of Christ (as undergirded by patristic study) to illuminate his articulation of the Eucharist.6 This led to an emphasis on the purpose and effects of the Eucharist (i. e., what the Eucharist does) and less on what the Eucharist is. Said another way, by focusing on what the Eucharist does, Melanchthon argued we could better understand and emphatically affirm Christ’s real presence. Most literature on patristic Eucharistic theology distinguishes between two main schools of thought: Ambrosian metabolism and Augustinian symbolism (with allowances for the fact that the reality was more complex).7 The first Eucharistic controversy of the Church erupted between Radbertus Paschasius (ca. 790 – 865) and Ratramnus (†868). Both theologians affirmed the real presence of Christ. In the very first doctrinal treatise on the Eucharist, the Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, Radbertus emphasized the full identity of the eucharistic body of Christ with his historical body, though the presence of the body in the Eucharist is supra-sensible. Ratramnus’s De corpore et sanguine Domini, on the other hand, while affirming the real presence, denied the presence of the historical body of Christ, preferring instead an explanation which made use of dynamic-symbolic terms. Ratramnus is critical of the term “change” to describe what happens in the Eucharist. Since no change is discerned, there can be no corporeal change in the physical elements (i. e., the bread and wine) but only a 6 See Quere, Christum Cognoscere, 39. 7 There are passages in Augustine that actually support both views. The main thing to remember for our discussion is that Augustine’s understanding of symbol does not mean “unreal.” For Augustine, the Eucharist is a sacramentum, a real image of the thing itself, the res ipsa; see Ep. 98, 9; Sermo 22, 7; 227, 1; and Enarr. in Pss. 33, 1, 10). Thus, Augustine’s use of symbol (from the Greek symballein, to bring together or join) implies that something is added or joined to the bread and wine, but does not explain how. A survey of Greek and Latin patristic thought on the Eucharist is provided succinctly in H. Gescher, “Eucharistie,” LThK 3, 1142 – 59. See also Johannes Betz, Eucharistie in der Schrift und Patristik (Freiburg: Herder, 1979). In the evaluation of Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100 – 600) (Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 1975): “No orthodox Father of the second or third century of whom we have record either declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (though Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence” (167).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates

187

spiritual one. Thus, the bread and wine are symbols of the historical body and blood of Christ. Ratramnus filled his text with citations of Augustine to prove his point. Ratramnus, however, had a different understanding of symbol from that of Augustine. According to Josef Geiselmann and Burkhard Neunheuser, Ratramnus missed the Platonic understanding of a symbol as a real image of the thing itself.8 As a result, Ratramnus read Augustine one-sidedly, ignoring Augustine’s eucharistic realism. In the words of Neunheuser, Augustine’s eucharistic doctrine was ametabolic; Ratramnus made it antimetabolic.9 This partial reading of Augustine would have consequences for the Reformation. Reflection on the Eucharist continued along the lines established by Radbertus, though the antimetabolic emphasis of Ratramnus did not vanish. The next major eucharistic controversy, in the eleventh century, would follow similar lines of argumentation. Berengarius of Tours (ca. 999 – 1088) was a leader in the revival of dialectic in theological discourse. He is credited with being the first theologian to apply the categories of form, matter, subject, and accident in the formulation of a doctrine of the Eucharist. Borrowing heavily from Ratramnus’s reading of Augustine, Berengarius was critical of eucharistic doctrines that were overly carnal. Lanfranc (ca. 1005 – 1089) and Peter Damian (†1072) both wrote against Berengarius, the former defending dialectical categories and the latter ignoring them. Again, we see that the main concern was how to speak of a real presence and a change in the bread and wine that did not lead to either “mere” symbolism or “gross” carnality. The Lateran Synod of 1059, which excommunicated Berengarius, lacked such refinement of language.10 A way forward using the dialectical method was advanced by Lanfranc and Guitmund of Aversa († ca. 1095). Lanfranc is credited with being the first theologian to use the word transubstantiation to explain the Eucharist, in which the substance of the elements was changed into the substance of the Lord’s body, which some of the qualities (such as outward appearance, taste, and texture) remained. Guitmund refined the explanation of a change in the elements, suggesting that it is the essence and not the external form of the Lord’s body that is present (though he does not use the 8 Josef Rupert Geiselmann, Die Eucharistielehre der Vorscholastik, Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte 15, 3 vols. (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1926) and Burkhard Neunheuser, Eucharistie in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 4, 4b (Freiburg: Herder, 1963). Neunheuser writes “[later readings of symbol which ignore any realism] are not the fault of Augustine. It is conditioned by the inability of a different age to gasp a sacramental system construed on the Platonic world of ideas” (20 – 21). 9 Neunheuser, Eucharistie, 18. 10 “Scilicit panem et vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari et frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri”; ESDD, §690, 227.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

188

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

word transubstantiation). He described the change as a “substantial transmutation” in which something (the Lord’s body) is made out of something else (bread and wine). Again, the accidents of bread and wine remain while the substance changes. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirmed the use of the word transubstantiation to describe the change the occurred to the bread and wine during the consecration. Henceforth, especially as Scholasticism developed as the dominant theological method of discourse, transubstantiation was the accepted word used to describe the change in the elements and the Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents became accepted vocabulary.11 Peter Lombard’s synthesis of patristic sources and St. Thomas Aquinas’s careful and extensive explanation cemented the role of these terms to describe the Eucharist.12 By the late medieval period, though Eucharistic debates were still waged over the finer points inherent in the adoption of Aristotelian categories, one can summarize the Latin church’s teaching on the Eucharist as affirming that the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present in the Eucharist; a real change in the elements is effected by the consecration; transubstantiation is the proper word to describe this change; the change is such that the accidents of the elements remain; this Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however, is not a crude corporeal or physical presence and so any cannibalistic interpretation (i. e., Capernaiticism) is excluded. The dawn of the fourteenth century ushered in substantial challenges to the primacy of the Scholastic method. The revival of classical rhetorical forms up through the sixteenth century led some Christian Humanists, having studied the patristic sources, to see that the Fathers did not discuss the Eucharist with the uniformity implied by the sententiae and florilegia. If the Fathers did not limit themselves to any particular vocabulary, the Humanists argued, why should they? Further, some revived the works of Ratramnus and Berengarius to counter the medieval theology they found too carnal.13 Still others, while wanting to

11 Quere, Christum Cognoscere, 9. See also Ludwig Hödl, “Der Transsubstantiationsbegriff in der scholastischen Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts,” Recherches de th¦ologie ancienne et m¦di¦vale 31 (1965): 230 – 59 and Gary Macy, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period: A Study of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament according to Theologians, c. 1080-c. 1220 (Oxford: Oxford University, 1984). 12 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, qq 78 – 83. 13 The first printing seemed to be in 1531; see Ratramnus, De corpore et sanguine Domini (Cologne: Johannes Prael, 1531 & 1532) (VD16 R 351 & 352). Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, and Martin Bucer all credited the work for convincing them that the doctrine of transubstantiation was false. A German translation by Leo Jud was published in Zurich with an introduction by Heinrich Bullinger. An English translation became available in 1548, The Book of Bertram the Priest, concerning the Body and Blood of Christ on the Sacrament.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates

189

defend the real presence and substantial change in the elements, were nonetheless dissatisfied with adoption and dominance of Aristotelian categories. In 1519, Melanchthon renounced the doctrine of transubstantiation.14 He argued that the specific explanation of how Christ is present in the Eucharist offered by the doctrine of transubstantiation should not be an article of faith. Nor was Melanchthon hesitant to call for reforms to the liturgy : Melanchthon was present at the celebration of the first Evangelical Mass at Wittenberg (in which the cup was given to the laity) and he reported favorably on this event to Luther, who was still at the Wartburg castle.15 Yet, for the Lutheran reformers — as opposed to the Zwinglian and Reformed theologians — a rejection of both transubstantiation and an understanding of the Mass as a propitiatory oblation did not also mean a rejection of the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s true body and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. For Evangelical reformers, a rejection of how the Eucharist had been explained by the medieval theologians (i. e., transubstantiation) did not necessitate a rejection of the traditional testimony of what the Eucharist is (as attested to by the words of Scripture and patristic sources).16 14 On 27 July 1519, Melanchthon articulated his criticisms of transubstantiation in his Baccalaureate theses for the Theology degree at Wittenberg. The roots of this rejection go back as far as his student days at Tübingen, where he ridiculed the attempt of his professor, Jakob Lemp, to explain the doctrine (Scheible, Melanchthon, 21 and 58). Though, as mentioned before, Melanchthon’s rejection was not a thunderbolt out of the blue. There were critics of the doctrine of transubstantiation throughout the medieval period because they perceived that it actually kept people away from the Eucharist or led to several superstitions (such as using it as an amulet to ward off evil or planting the Host in the field to ensure good crops), see Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 186 – 87. As early as 1503, Erasmus wrote a description of the Eucharist in the Enchiridion, which de-emphasized the sacrificial character and doctrine of the real presence and instead emphasized the memorial and communal nature of the celebration. Earlier, transubstantiation had been denied by John Wycliffe (†1384) and Jan Hus (1369 – 1415) and called into question by Pierre d’Ailly (1351 – 1420). 15 This occurred on the Feast of All Angels, 29 September 1521, in the City Church; see Scheible, Melanchthon, 63. More significant reforms to the liturgy (i. e., without vestments and with the Words of Institution spoken in German) would not occur until Christmas Eve, 1521, led by Andreas Karlstadt. 16 “Real presence did not involve sacrifice and could be affirmed independent of transubstantiation or any other explanation of how Christ is present”; Quere, Christum Cognoscere, 44 – 45. Also, “to draw the relationship of the sacramental understanding to justification without making participation automatically justificative and to show its relationship to assurance while denying its sacrificial character remained a central concern for the [Lutheran] Reformers. It is in this soteriological context that Philipp Melanchthon’s doctrine begins and continues even during the eucharistic controversy” (30). For Evangelicals, “the doctrine of transubstantiation provided an explanation of real presence which multiplied entities beyond necessary. The real miracle of the eucharist is that Christ is present, not that the substance of the bread and wine are absent. Late medieval theology requires two miracles, whereas the New Testament knows only one. Christ is present in the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

190

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

An understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist was directly linked to the Evangelical doctrine of justification: it is God’s action, not ours, that effects salvation. In the Loci of 1521, the young Melanchthon explained the sacraments thus: Signs [i.e., the sacraments, are] very closely related to the promises [i.e., the gospel proclamation of divine mercy]. . . . The great fact is that they are a testimony of God’s will toward you. . . . Signs do not justify . . . so Baptism is nothing, and participation in the Lord’s Supper is nothing, but they are testimonies and seals of divine will toward you which give assurance to your conscience if it doubts grace or God’s good will towards itself. . . . In like manner, you ought not to doubt that you have experienced mercy when you have heard the gospel and received the signs of the gospel, [i.e.,] baptism, and the body and blood of the Lord. . . . As for these signs, then, you ought to believe with as much certainty that God is merciful to you when you receive Baptism and participate in the Lord’s Supper as you would if God himself were to speak with you or show forth some miracle peculiarly to you.17

Christ’s word of promise (whether in the promise of our justification or that he will be present with us in the celebration of the Supper) is efficacious.18 No other doctrine is needed: the doctrine of transubstantiation is unnecessary, and a belief in the sacrifice of the Mass reveals our lack of trust in the efficaciousness of Christ’s death and resurrection. Ralph Quere underlines this point when he demonstrates Melanchthon’s repeated emphasis on the sacraments as “signs,” not as a badge one wears but as a divine witness to God’s own action and confirmation of the gift.19 This Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist is characteristically Christocentric and tied to soteriology. This is a result of having to respond to other reformers who introduced Christology as a means to deny the real presence. In 1525, through their own readings of Scripture and patristic sources, Swiss reformers Zwingli and Oecolampadius (among others) renounced Luther’s affirmation of carnal manducation, that even the unworthy receive Christ in the Eucharist, and denied any change in the elements.20 The glorified Christ, Logos

17 18

19 20

eucharist but so are the bread and wine in their full reality”; David C. Steinmetz, Luther in Context (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 73 – 74. CR 21, 208 – 10; Pauck, 133 – 35. In 1520, Luther had rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In 1529, Luther’s Large Catechism reaffirmed the Evangelical position: “It is the one who believes what the words say and what they give, for they are not spoken or preached to stone and wood but to those who hear them, those to whom he says, ‘Take and eat,’ etc. and because he offers and promises forgiveness of sins, it can be received in no other way that by faith. . . . The treasure is opened and placed at everyone’s door, yes, upon the table, but it is also very necessary [es gehört aber dazu/peropus est] to take it and confidently believe that it is just as the words tell you” (BSLK, 714 – 15; BC, 470). Quere, Christum Cognoscere, 57 – 58. See Zwingli’s Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia (1525) and Oecolampadius’s De genuina

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates

191

of the transcendent Father, could not be contained in the material of bread and wine; such was superstition. And do the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds not affirm that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father? Therefore, it is also not possible for Christ to in the bread and wine in any real, physical manner. Instead, the Swiss reformers argued that the Eucharist was a memorial of the Last Supper, inviting participants to communicate in the assembled Gemeinde and not with the person of Christ. This understanding is made clear if one accepts that the words of Christ, “this is my body,” are not to be taken literally.21 In response, Luther and Melanchthon turned to the orthodox formulae — especially from the Council of Chalcedon — to affirm the real presence. They accused the Swiss of reviving Nestorianism when they affirmed that the body of Christ could not be in more than one place.22 Rather, upholding the faith of the creeds necessitated that “the full Christ” must be present in the Eucharist. That is, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is both corporeal and spiritual; the affirmation of the communicatio idiomatum necessitated as much.23 To the Swiss reformers, this was no different from the doctrine of transubstantiation; Wolfgang Capito accused the Lutherans of being the impanati Dei.24 More to the point, the Swiss accused the Evangelicals of Monophysitism — i. e., confusing the two natures of Christ. Luther responded:

21

22 23

24

verborum Domini (1525). Later, Oecolampadius would write an extensive collection of patristic sources against the real presence (as Melanchthon had articulated it) with his Dialogus (1530). Melanchthon’s responses to the works of Karlstadt, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Bucer can be found in several letters, including: De Carlstadii sententia de coena sacra, 26/27 September 1527 (MBW 595 [T3, 169 – 70]/CR 1, 1036); letter to Oecolampadius, 25 April 1529 (MBW 775 [T3, 487 – 95]/CR 1, 1048 – 50); letter to John Fesel, 2 November 1529 (MBW 838 [T3, 632 – 33]/CR 1, 1109 – 10); A report on the Eucharistic practices in Saxony, March 1530 (MBW 887 [T4/1, 112 – 15]/CR 2, 24 – 25); Iudicium de Missa, 19 July 1530 (MBW 981 [T4/1, 400 – 08]/CR 2, 208 – 14); and a letter to Bucer detailing the errors of Zwingli, 7 September 1530 (MBW 1067 [T4/2, 648 – 59]/CR 215 – 16). See also his Sententiae Veterum Aliquot Scriptorum de Coena Domini, 1529 (CR 23, 745 – 52). See Zwingli’s Amica exegesis (“Friendly Exegesis, That Is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist, Addressed to Martin Luther”) (February 1527), Huldrych Zwingli Writings, vol. 2, ed. and trans. H. Wayne Pipkin (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984), 282 – 83. Zwingli argued that Christ was using the rhetorical devise of catachresis. For how Zwingli’s reading of Origen influenced his eucharistic theology, see Irena Backus, “Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and the Church Fathers,” The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, vol. 2 (Boston: Brill, 2001) esp. 628 – 44 and also Alfred Schindler, Zwingli und die Kirchenväter, 147 (Zürich: Kommissionsverlag Beer, 1984). Melanchthon, in a loose leaf manuscript, drew the connection between Nestorius and those who distinguish between the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist over against the corporeal; see Scheda, 20 August 1530 (MBW 1030 [T4/2, 569]/CR 2, 226). Against the charge that this position was no different than the gross carnality implied by transubstantiation, Melanchthon clarified that the corporeal presence of Christ refers to the body of Christ, not his historical flesh. See the Letter to Georg Brück, ca. 25 August 1530 (MBW 1044 T4/2, 596 – 99/CR 2, 223 & 224). See James Kittelson, Wolfgang Capito: From Humanist to Reformer (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 149.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

192

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

Here you must take your stand and say that wherever Christ is according to his divinity, he is there as a natural, divine person and he is also naturally and personally there. . . . But if he is present naturally and personally wherever he is, then he must be man there, too, since he is not two separate persons but a single person. Wherever this person is, it is the single, indivisible person, and if you can say “Here is God” then you must also say, “Christ the man is present too.”25

In 1529, as an effort to prevent the further fracturing of the Protestant cause, Philip of Hesse invited a delegation of Wittenberg and Swiss reformers to Marburg to discuss the matter. The failure of this dialogue is well known. Melanchthon wrote several reports offering his evaluation of the events.26 By binding the discussion of the Eucharist to orthodox Christological formulas, the Evangelical emphasis of the sixteenth century resonated with a great deal of Greek patristic emphasis.27 The Lutheran affirmation of the Christology of the creeds forms the basis for their criticism of both Roman and Reformed Eucharistic theology : because Christ is fully human and fully divine, we may likewise affirm that the earthly elements of bread and wine remain despite His real presence in or with or under the elements. Because of the communication of attributes, we dare not separate His humanity from His divinity, and therefore cannot be satisfied with an affirmation of only His “spiritual” presence at the Supper. Melanchthon repeatedly boasted that neither the Roman nor Swiss Eucharistic theology could be sustained by the Fathers. Yet, despite the resonance hinted above between Greek patristic through and Lutheran affirmations, this remains a coincidence rather than an explicit and full exposition of Greek patristic thought — despite Melanchthon’s best efforts to the contrary. Melanchthon affirmed that the evidence of patristic testimony was securely on the Lutheran side in his Sententiae veterum (1529), a collection of patristic 25 See Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, LW 37, 218/WA 26, 319. 26 In a letter to Matthäus Alber, a Swabian reformer in Reutlingen and former classmate at Tübingen, Melanchthon addressed his concerns, 4/5 October 1529 (MBW 826 [T3, 604 – 5]/ CR 1, 1102 – 06). Melanchthon’s attitude leading up to and his reports after the colloquy in Marburg can be found in: Iudicium Melanchthonis de Colloquio cum Zwinglio et Oecolampadio, 9/10 May 1529 (MBW 777 [T3, 497 – 500]/CR 1, 1066 – 67), in which Melanchthon reports to the Elector that he did not think the dialogue would be fruitful. See also several subsequent reports to the Elector John Frederick, 16/17 October 1529 (MBW 831 [T3, 613 – 19]/CR 1, 1098 – 1102) and to Duke Henry, 16/17 October 1529 (MBW 832 [T3, 620 – 77]/CR 1, 1102 – 06) as well as to several friends (MBW 827, 828, 829, 830a [T3, 604 – 13]). 27 In fact, in an earlier letter to Matthäus Alber, 4 January 1526 (MBW 442), Melanchthon had expressed his conviction that Zwingli was wrong by citing the Greek church: (T2, 393 – 94). See H. Gescher, “Eucharistie,” LThK 3, 1142 – 59: “The Greek doctrine of the Lord’s Supper holds that the real presence of the eucharistic Christ is analogous to the mode of being of the historical Christ. The Greeks understood the presence of the Body of Christ as an anamnesis of the Incarnation, and the Eucharist itself as an anamnesis of the whole Christ-event. Thus, the doctrine of the Eucharist recapitulates the doctrine of the person of Christ” (1148).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates

193

sources testifying to an understanding of the real presence.28 In the preface, however, Melanchthon acknowledged the difficulty of finding patristic sources that clearly addressed the controversies of the sixteenth century. Nonetheless, he also argued that there was no doubt that the Fathers understood that the body and blood of Christ were not absent in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.29 Therefore, we should do nothing to depart from this tradition. In the preface, Melanchthon complained of the excessive allegorizing of Origen and that Gregory Nazianzen offers nothing of satisfactory clarity concerning the Eucharist.30 He added that there is a quotation in Gratian from Basil, which at least does not contradict the Lutheran understanding. He continued by saying that he found Cardinal Bessarion’s work against George Trebizond most helpful.31 Melanchthon then admitted that his opponents have often used Augustine to contradict the Evangelical position, but a closer examination reveals that these quotations do not do as much as their opponents claim. Finally, he again makes a connection between the orthodox Christological formulation of Nicaea and Ephesus. The treatise itself is a collection of passages concerning the Eucharist from Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hilary, Cyprian, and Irenaeus.32 These quotations are offered with very little commentary. The last Father to be examined is Augustine, in which Melanchthon tried to reclaim his authority by offering an alternative interpretation to that offered by Karlstadt and others. Quere notes that, for Melanchthon, no matter the authority of Augustine he cannot counter the clear words of Cyril and Hilary.33 In essence, Augustine should be interpreted through the clear meaning of Scripture and other Fathers who spoke of the Eucharist in a clearer manner. Melanchthon then concludes with an appeal that, 28 Sententiae Veterum Aliquot Scriptorum de Coena Domini (CR 23, 745 – 52). 29 See letter to Frederick Myconius, preface to the Sententiae veterum aliquot scriptorum de coena domini, January/February 1530 (MBW 863 [T4/1, 47]/CR 2, 29 – 32). 30 MBW 863, 47. 31 See MBW 863[T 4/1, 47], n. 40) he is referring to the In Calumniatorem Platonis, libri iv (1469). 32 These references are to: Cyril’s Commentary on John chapters 15 and 6; Chrysostom’s Homily 46 on John 6, Homily 83 on Matthew 26, and a passage from De dignitate sacerdotum; Theophylact on passages in Matthew and Mark; Hilary’s De trinitate book 8; Cyprian’s Ad Caecilium and a sermon on the Lord’s Supper; and Irenaeus’s Contra Valentinium, book 5 (page 294). 33 “While Melanchthon has no fear of criticizing the Fathers, when faced with the collection of Augustinian sentences which seem to contradict the Lutheran position, he argues that — instead of saying Augustine was wrong — Augustine had been taken out of context. No matter the authority of Augustine. . . . [Melanchthon] also argues from silence: no testimony of Scripture can be brought forward to deny Christ’s presence in the Supper or that would force us to employ an allegorical interpretation [of “this is my body”],” Quere, Christum Cognoscere, 264.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

194

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

given such clear testimony, further debates are pointless, as they serve no other function than to turn Christian doctrine into philosophy.34 This is a crucial point and one that Melanchthon persistently hit upon. Therefore, we should adhere to the received faith of the Church, which calls us to focus on God’s action for us in the sacraments and their proper use.35 This appeal to the patristic consensus, which tells us that Christ is truly present in the elements while not explaining how, would remain constant throughout Melanchthon’s career. From 1529 until his death, Melanchthon refrained from affirming anything beyond the testimony that Christ was truly present in and with the bread and wine.36 Otherwise, one would (despite pious intentions to the contrary) be turning Christian doctrine into philosophy. As a result, when speaking of the Eucharist, he referred almost exclusively to the benefits of receiving the Eucharist and emphasizing Christ’s efficacious presence in the Church, where the true sacraments are offered.37 Some of Melanchthon’s critics (past and present), looking for a testimony of Melanchthon’s deviation from true Lutheranism, saw Crypto-Calvinism in his reticence on the Eucharist. Manschreck argued that Melanchthon had become convinced by the response offered against his own collection of patristic sentences by those of 34 “Fuerunt olim astati homines, qui hac ratione totum doctrinam Christianam transformaverunt in Philosophiam” (Sententiae Veterum, CR 23, 749). 35 Sententiae Veterum (CR 23, 751 – 52). 36 See Wilhelm Neuser, Die Abendmahlslehre Melanchthons in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung 1519 – 1530 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Keukirchener, 1968). He offers a chart showing Melanchthon’s developing articulation of the Eucharist as he searched for patristic references. 1526: “corpus Christi esse in Eucharistia.” 1527: “Christm adesse praesentum in Eucharistia,” “verum corpus [adest] in Eucharistia,” and “corpus Christi praesens esse in Synaxi.” 1528: “Das da wahrhafftiger Leib und Blut Christi sey.” 1529: “in illa Coena praesentis corporis Áoimym_am esse,” “corpus Christi adesse in coena,” “corpus domini vere adsit in coena,” “dass wahrer Leib und Blut Christi in Abendmahl sind,” and “Corpus domini vere praesens in coena esse” (Neuser, ibid., 398). See also the previously cited letter to Georg Brück, ca. 25 August 1530 (MBW 1044 [T4/2 596]): “Nos docemus, quod corpus Christi vere et realiter adsit cum pane, vel in pane” (emphasis added). 37 This is the essence of Quere’s thesis: “Knowing that Christ is there, i. e., in the sacrament, places and confirms a person in the faith-relationship described by the dictum Christum cognoscere beneficia eius cognoscere. This dictum is the theological link between Melanchthon’s soteriology and his ecclesiology. Since Christ’s sacramental presence is a presence in his Church, whatever else must be said about his ritual presence with the bread and wine or when the elements are given the ecclesial presence and the benefit of incorporation are both the means and the end of sacramental action” (Quere, Christum Cognoscere, 388). Other authors, whether to credit or condemn Melanchthon, emphasize this aspect as well; see Clyde Manschreck, Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer (New York: Abingdon, 1969), 233 – 241; Klaus Haendler, Wort und Glaube bei Melanchthon (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968), 172; and Peter Fraenkel, “10 Questions Concerning Melanchthon, the Fathers, and the Eucharist,” Luther and Melanchthon in the History and Theology of the Reformation, ed. Vilmos Vajta (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961), 163.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Study of the Cappadocians in the Eucharistic Debates

195

Oecolampadius and Bucer, so much so that Melanchthon did not allow the Sententiae to be republished.38 This is, however, simply misleading. The work was translated into German in 1532 and reprinted in 1554, though without his express permission. Others point to Melanchthon’s effort to broker the Wittenberg Concord (1536) with Martin Bucer and the Strasbourg theologians as well as to the revisions made to the Augsburg Confession (the so called, Variata) concerning the Eucharist (1540).39 Yet, proponents of the idea that Melanchthon “betrayed” Luther cannot not avoid the fact that Luther approved of and signed the Wittenberg Concord. The changes in the Variata brought the text of the Augsburg Confession in line with the Concord.40 What is more, Article Seven of the Formula of Concord (1577) reaffirmed the Wittenberg Concord. The Formula underlined the “original” Evangelical understanding of the Eucharist (i. e., through the Augsburg Confession, the Wittenberg Concord, and the Smalkald Articles) because the interpretation of the Variata was in question. According the Formula, the Variata should be interpreted (as it had been intended) in line with the other confessional texts. The dispute over the interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper erupted in 1550s and 1560s as some with more Reformed leanings tried to use the Variata to justify something it sought to condemn: a “spiritual” understanding of Christ. Since these events occurred after Melanchthon’s death, it hardly seems justified to continue to blame him for the interpretations of others. Moreover, if Melanchthon was kept in line only by his fear, then surely Luther’s death would have allowed him to “speak his true mind.” And yet, it seems very clear that his true mind on the question was set by 1529 and repeated until 38 Manschreck, Quiet Reformer, 235. 39 For Gnesio-Lutherans, past and present, the Variata will always mar Melanchthon’s reputation. See David P. Scaer, “In Response to Bengt Hägglund: Did Luther and Melanchthon Agree on the Real Presence?,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 44 (July 1980): 141 – 47. The Wittenberg Concord read “with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, given out, and received” and “as Paul says that the unworthy also eat, so they [the signers] hold that, where the words and institution of Christ are retained, the body and blood of the Lord are truly offered also to the unworthy, and that the unworthy receive” (cum pane et vino vere et substantialiter adesse, exhiberi et sumi corpus Christi et sanguine . . . . Quare sicut Paulus ait, etiam indignos manducare, ita sentiunt porrigi vere corpus et sanguinem Domini etiam indignis et indignos sumere, ubi servatur verba et institutio Christi) BSLK, 65; BC 320. 40 We can see this simply by comparing the texts. The Augsburg Confession (1530) reads “De coena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in coena Domini.” The Wittenberg Concord reads “cum pane et vino vere et substantialiter adesse, exhiberi et sumi corpus Christi et sanguine.” The Variata (1540) reads “De coena domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in coena domini.” See BSLK, 64 – 65.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

196

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

the end of his life. Instead of seeing either conspiracy or cowardice in Melanchthon’s actions, the simpler explanation is more likely. Having participated in the colloquies and seen the endless debate over the citation of patristic sources, Melanchthon affirmed the real presence in a way that did not go beyond the patristic consensus.41 In 1559, Melanchthon was asked to offer his evaluation of the Eucharistic controversy among the faculty of the University of Heidelberg. Therein, he reaffirmed his position of 1529. Interestingly, as a sign of his continued study of patristic materials, he seems to have picked up references from Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and other Fathers not listed in the Sententiae. In particular, Melanchthon listed Gregory as among the correct testimonies concerning the Eucharist, when he spoke of the elements of bread and wine as an antitype of the body.42 Melanchthon moved the debate to where his mind was more inclined and the patristic testimony more certain: to the benefits of Christ’s presence and rejecting any sense of works-righteousness in the Lord’s Supper. When he is defending the real presence, even as early as 1526 and repeated in 1529, Melanchthon used the term exhibere (which means “to deliver” as well as “to present”) as a technical term for the Eucharistic presence and emphasized the functional, efficacious aspect (usu coenae Domini) of the Eucharist.43 Neither he nor Luther saw this as a contradiction to the statements of the other. Their differing emphases are complimentary, not contradictory. Melanchthon’s preference for speaking of the benefits of the Eucharist may have made some gnesioLutheran uncomfortable (given the theological controversies that developed after Melanchthon’s death and before the drafting of the Formula of Concord), yet it is in no way a denial of the real presence Melanchthon had articulated alongside and with the approval of Luther himself. We can read no more into Melanchthon’s “economy of words” (periculosa brevitas) concerning the Eu-

41 Fraenkel emphasizes this point: not only is Melanchthon unwilling to rehash the same old proofs, he is unwilling to move beyond the testimony of the patristic consensus. That is, since the Fathers are not clear, we should affirm no more and no less than Christ’s real presence and avoid speculation as to how so that we do not delude ourselves to the point of missing the benefits of His communication of His presence and benefits to those gathered (Fraenkel, 10 Questions, 153). 42 In a letter to Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate, referring to the debate over the Eucharist at the University of Heidelberg, Melanchthon cast his method in opposition to Heshusius and Klebitz, Exorta controversia de sacra coena in Academia Heidelbergensi, 1 November 1559 (MBW 9118 & 9119/CR 9,960 – 66, esp. 963). This opinion is a near exact repetition of his Memorandum Concerning the Weimar Confutation, 1559 (MBW 8886/CR 9, 766). See Peter F. Barton, “Heshusius, Tilemann,” TRE, v. 15, 256 – 260. Later, the Reformed gained the ascendency in both the university and the Palatinate. Those already angry at Melanchthon also blamed him for paving the way in his memorandum. 43 See Fraenkel, 10 Questions, 156.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of the Cappadocians in the Debate Over Free Will

197

charist than we might concerning Basil’s same economy concerning the Holy Spirit — no matter how much this frustrated their respective colleagues.

3.

Melanchthon’s Citation of the Cappadocians in the Debate Over Free Will

In reviewing the intra-Lutheran controversies after 1548, one cannot overemphasize the identity crisis provoked by the Emperor’s conquest of Evangelical territories and the subsequent imposition of the Interim. Those who stayed worked towards peace under the new regime and those who fled accused the other of playing Judas. One of the issues hotly contested was the wording about the freedom of the will in the Augsburg and Leipzig interims. This debate has roots in Luther’s controversy with Erasmus on the same topic. Melanchthon, who unambiguously sided with Luther in the 1520s, was nonetheless dogged with the charge that he betrayed Luther’s insights.44 Melanchthon and Luther agreed that the human will, according to its own powers, was so bound to sin that it is unable to will its own salvation, to turn towards God in true repentance, or even prepare for grace; all of these are the result of God’s actions alone. Melanchthon was immediately concerned, however, that this position could be misinterpreted and open the way to “Stoicism” and “Manicheism” (i. e., fatalism).45 Already in the Loci of 1521 and more carefully articulated in subsequent editions, Melanchthon echoed Luther’s own affirmation that the Gospel did not

44 It should be pointed out here that this image of Melanchthon as a “crypto-Erasmian” who — out of fear of both men — vainly tried to mediate between them has endured, has no basis in historical fact. Through careful analysis, both Heinz Scheible and Timothy Wengert have shown that Melanchthon’s relationship with Erasmus was strained from the very beginning. Wengert, through a study of Melanchthon’s Scholia on Colossians (1527), has demonstrated that Melanchthon consistently and systematically attacked Erasmus, though this often goes unnoticed since Melanchthon did not (according to humanistic convention) identify Erasmus by name. See Timothy J. Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam (New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1998), esp. 7 – 14. 45 See Loci, 1543 (CR 21, 652 – 53[Stoics] & 658 – 59 [the “Enthusiasts”, i. e., Anabaptists, and Manichees]; Preus, 41 & 43 – 44). See also Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997). Melanchthon recognized an essential role for poenitentia (and thus, the Law) in the life of those who lived under the promises of the Gospel. Agricola, however, completely denied this understanding. In the Loci of 1521, we can already see the foundation of Melanchthon’s opinion: “the law was not enough, since it merely showed us what we should do, but it was also necessary that through Christ the Spirit should be given to inflame us to love the law” (40).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

198

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

negate the role of good works in the life of the justified sinner. Nonetheless, good works performed by a thankful and willing regenerate heart are indeed essential characteristics of the normal Christian life. This understanding is reaffirmed in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. I will use Melanchthon’s articulations in the Loci of 1543 as the illustrative text since it represents his most mature and thorough examination, occasionally supplemented with references to Melanchthon’s Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere of 1553.46

3.1

The Loci communes of 1543

Article Four of the Loci 1543 offers an extended articulation of human freedom and divine grace.47 Melanchthon begins by negating certain common affirmations, especially in light of John Calvin’s own work on the topic. First, he asserts that “we must not bring Stoic ideas into the church or uphold the fanatical necessity of all things.”48 Here, Melanchthon is affirming that not all things happen by necessity but rather some things happen by contingency ; for instance, it “was not necessary for Alexander to kill Clitus.” By this, he means that not every human action has been predetermined by fate or divine providence. 46 It is important to note, however, that the supplemental role I assigned here to the 1553 work should not to be taken as the general rule. Unfortunately, Melanchthon’s 1553 German edition of the Heubtarikel Christlicher Lere has often been overlooked. See Ralf Jenett and Johannes Schilling, eds., Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere: Melanchthons deutsche Fassung seiner Loci Theologici, nach dem Autograph und dem Originaldruck von 1553 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002), esp. 139 – 59; see also Johannes Schilling, “Melanchthons Deutsche Dogmatik,” Der Theologe Melanchthon (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2000), 243 – 58. Written for an educated lay audience (the work was dedicated to Anna Camerarius, the wife of Melanchthon’s closest friend, Joachim Camerarius), it is more than just a reworking of Justus Jonas’ translation of the Latin Loci of 1543. Generally, the 1553 edition is less pedagogical and has fewer references to classical and patristic authors. Also, Melanchthon’s usual emphasis on true doctrine as a source of comfort for the troubled conscience seems to be more pronounced in this later edition. Because of the overall harmony between the two works, I will use the Latin Loci 1543 as the base of our examination while referring to the German Heubtartikel of 1553 where pertinent. 47 CR 21, 652 – 655; Preus, 41 – 46. 48 CR 21, 652; Preus, 41. The “Stoic” to whom Melanchthon referred was most likely John Calvin. In January 1543, as had often before, Calvin praised Melanchthon’s Stoicism (i. e., moderation) when addressing predestination in the Loci of 1535. In fact, Melanchthon had declared the topic fruitless; it was better to focus on God’s promises in the Gospel. With such hollow praise, Calvin implied that Melanchthon did not discuss the matter as thoroughly as he ought. By using the descriptor “Stoic” here in 1543, Melanchthon is focusing instead on the fatalism he found evident in Calvin’s work. See Timothy J. Wengert, “The Epistolary Friendship of John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon,” Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence beyond Wittenberg, ed. Karin Maag (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 19 – 44, esp. 26 – 33.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of the Cappadocians in the Debate Over Free Will

199

On the other hand, Melanchthon continues, it is likewise necessary to assert that there are indeed severe restrictions on human freedom as a result of sin.49 Any discussion of human freedom must begin not with its natural powers but with an acknowledgment of human weakness.50 This distinction must be made clear, especially to the laity, so that they neither despair of the gospel promises nor become inflamed with a false sense of our natural human powers. That is, we must distinguish and maintain the balance between divine predeterminism (as it relates to our salvation) and human freedom (as it relates to earthly, temporary affairs). Melanchthon then briefly articulates his understanding of anthropology. Humans are composed of mind (mens), to which belongs intellect or reason, and will (voluntas), to which belong the affections, desires, and motion.51 Free choice only exists when the mind and will are in agreement whether to accept or deny something presented to it. In the state of perfection (i. e., the state of Adam before the Fall), the relation of mind and will were more harmonious; though now they are often at odds. Further, he reasserted the position he first outlined in the Loci of 1521, that we should pay more attention to the biblical language, which speaks more of mind and heart over against intellect and will.52 Yet, even within the biblical narratives, we must clarify that the choices recorded there of the patriarchs and apostles were real judgments and true desires, not pretended ones. Such preliminary clarifications out of the way, Melanchthon then reasserted that any consideration of the freedom of the human will must begin with a recognition of the power of sin. This becomes most apparent when we consider 49 CR 21, 652; Preus, 41. 50 While not contradicting this affirmation, the 1553 Heubtartikel begins by noting that many have confused the natural powers of humanity, namely the Stoics, who should be forbidden to hold positions of authority in the Christian church. Again, his mostly likely target may have been Calvin. Therefore, while a certain freedom remained in “outer things” we cannot freely (that is, of our own accord) call upon or truly love God. Melanchthon then continues to elaborate upon just how frail the fallen will is. The primary problem is that people often fail to distinguish between the freedom of man in external matters from the bondage of the heart to sin (141 – 42). The first way to answer the question of human freedom is negative: humanity cannot choose to love God. The second answer, however, is positive: as a result of God initial and sustaining grace, the human will may grow in freedom under the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit. 51 CR 21, 653; Preus, 41. For an analysis of Melanchthon’s anthropology, see Heinrich Bornkamm, “Melanchthons Menschenbild,” Philipp Melanchthon: Forschungsbeiträge zur vierhundertsten Widerkehr seines Todestags, ed. Walter Elliger (Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1961), 76 – 90. 52 CR 21, 90; Pauck, 27: “Quid enim est voluntas, si non adfectuum fons est? Et cur non pro voluntatis vocabulo cordis nomen usurpamus?” And in 1543, he wrote “Ceterum in sermone Prophetarum et Apostolorum haec vocabula sunt, Mens et Cor, quae ambo sumunter pro intellectu et voluntate vere, non simulate aliquid volente” (CR 21, 653; Preus, 41).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

200

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

the fact that God demands not only external actions but also a particular disposition of the heart. We are called to love, trust, fear, and obey God above all others, yet this is impossible given the darkness and confusion that now grips our human nature as a result of sin. The primary motif here is one of darkness under sin and illumination of grace.53 The problem of the freedom of the will was framed within a recognition of our limitations and the perfection to which God calls humanity. Melanchthon addressed this question in three stages: first, the sense in which the unregenerated human will is free in certain external actions; second, the extent to which the unregenerate human will is bound to sin (especially in relation to the disordered passions of the will or heart); and finally, the sense in which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit effects a regeneration of the human will such that it begins to exercise a true freedom. Melanchthon first defended a context in which the human will is free, even free to perform some external acts pleasing to God. This is because there remains in humans a desire to do good which runs counter to the fallen condition. Thus, the human will “can, by its own powers and regeneration perform to some degree the external works of the Law.”54 This reality finds testimony from both the ancient philosophers and St. Paul himself, such as when he refers to the “righteousness of the flesh.” Melanchthon goes further and asserts that these external acts are indeed commanded by God and their absence warrants divine wrath and punishment. He cited 1 Tim 1:9 and Gal 3:24 as evidence. All people of common sense recognize the goodness of refraining from murder, theft, and violence. In this regard, the Law serves as a pedagogue and enforcer of discipline against the more wicked deeds of humanity (i. e., the first use of the law). The performance of these external acts does not merit salvation (i. e., justification) and are not equal to the righteousness that is imputed to us by God. However, they are nonetheless necessary since the Law, as the word of God, endures and points the way to Christ.55 Melanchthon concludes this argument by asserting that even within this limited scope of freedom, humanity is still hampered by inherited human frailty and the assaults of the devil.56 In the second argument, Melanchthon asserted that the unregenerate person cannot control the disposition of the heart.57 That is, whereas we can recognize a 53 CR 21, 653 – 54; Preus 41. 54 CR 21, 654; Preus, 41. This is harmonious with the first answer to the question of human freedom in the 1553 edition (Heubtartikel, 142 & 143). That is, the only freedom we can speak of in the unregenerate is an external freedom. Though we may chose to avoid murder, thievery, adultery, etc. — which is certainly commendable and praiseworthy — they do not constitute the true righteousness that comes from a pure heart which lives by grace through faith in the promise of Christ. 55 CR 21, 654; Preus, 42. 56 CR 21, 655, Preus, 42. 57 CR 21, 655; Preus, 42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of the Cappadocians in the Debate Over Free Will

201

certain exercise of freedom in external deeds, the heart is completely captive to the power of sin. Humanity does not have true trust in nor love and fear of God. What is more, humanity is always subject to the power of death. Humans are so ensnared to sin that we do not even realize how dire our situation is. When faced with the command to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5), however, there is no doubt that all people stand under the condemnation of the Law. When considered in relation to the power of sin and death of humanity, the concept of true and full human freedom is revealed as an illusion. We can only appeal to divine mercy and the promises of Christ.58 Third, however, Melanchthon reminds the reader that the promises of Christ are not given in vain. Citing Luke 11:13, Melanchthon emphasizes that God’s declaration of righteousness is efficacious.59 Therefore, there is a sense in which we can speak of the freedom of the will within one who has been justified by Christ and regenerated through the Holy Spirit. The human will alone cannot produce the love, fear, trust, and obedience God demands. However, with the help of the Holy Spirit, all things are possible. The extent which these virtues are accomplished is determined by the Holy Spirit; nonetheless they are indeed possible through God’s grace.60 This promise should be greatest source of comfort to those terrified by power of sin and death. God delivers what God has promised.61 Now we have reached the heart of the most controversial aspect of Melanchthon’s description: the three causes of good works (bonae actiones). These are the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the human will which “assents to and does not contend against the Word of God . . . with the aid of the Holy Spirit, the will is certainly not idle.”62 In beginning his argument, Melanchthon quotes St. Basil: “Only want to, and God has preceded you.”63 Melanchthon roots his discussion of human freedom and divine grace in the best of the patristic tradition in order to demonstrate the orthodoxy of his articulation. Further, Melanchthon is a conscientious teacher, especially as the editions of the Loci communes were used for the instruction of university students and future pastors. He aims to strike a delicate balance in this discussion, which was necessary not only for the 58 Again, in harmony with what he had articulated before, the 1553 edition asked readers to reflect on the full power of sin, such that any appeal to outer freedom is revealed to be in vain (Heubtartikel, 144 – 45). 59 CR 21, 656; Preus, 42. 60 CR 21, 656; Preus, 42. 61 CR 21, 658; Preus, 43. Melanchthon’s emphasis on the efficacy of God’s Word is not new, see CR 21, 181 – 82; Pauck, 109 – 110. 62 CR 21, 658; Preus, 43. 63 CR 21, 658; Preus, 43. The quotation is taken from Ps.-Basil’s sermon On Penance and appears again in the Loci 1553, 150.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

202

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

preservation of biblical truth but also to counter the more radical interpretations. First, Melanchthon was careful to assert that salvation is only a gift of divine grace and belongs only to the divine prerogative; nevertheless, this affirmation does not necessitate that all things are governed by necessity. He wrote, “God has previously turned us, calls, warns, and helps us; but we should see to it that we do not resist Him. For it is manifest that sin arises out of us and not by the will of God” (emphasis added).64 Thus, God’s will is for all to be saved; the fact that not everyone embraces this message of salvation is a matter of human fault, not divine will or error.65 Some theologians then and now (e. g., Lowell Green), have argued that this position negates divine omnipotence, as it would appear that human will can frustrate God’s intention. Yet, for Melanchthon (in harmony with early Augustine, though he is not cited) God does not force the will. Rather, God coerces through the Law and entices through the Gospel. Though this may seem difficult to accept, it is a far better affirmation than the alternative, according to Melanchthon, which is to affirm that God wills damnation, there are some who cannot be converted, or that God is responsible for evil.66 The quotation from Basil (along with another from John Chrysostom), allowed Melanchthon to affirm simultaneously that salvation is entirely the act of God, that the will moves towards its own salvation (“Only want to. . .”), and that the will moves towards its own salvation as a result (not the cause!) of divine grace (“. . . and God has preceded you”).67 Melanchthon pressed his argument further by arguing that not only is this explanation consonant with the universal promise of the Gospel, is it also harmonious with the commands of the Law. The Lord commands us to struggle 64 CR 21, 658; Preus, 43: “Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, aduivat, sed nos viderimus, ne repugnemus. Constat enim peccatum oriri a nobis, non a voluntate Dei.” 65 It should be noted here that in affirming God’s universal will for all humans to be saved, Melanchthon departed from Luther and Augustine in their interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4; see Lowell Green, “Universal Salvation (I Timothy 2:4) according to the Lutheran Reformers,” Lutheran Quarterly (1995): 281 – 300. In his Enarratio Epistolae prioris ad Timotheum (CR 15, 1295 – 1396), Melanchthon rejected Augustine’s interpretation (that some of all nations and status will be saved) to affirm instead the universal promise of the Gospel to all people in all nations (285). 66 Both of which Melanchthon labeled “Stoicism” and “Manichaeism” and are guilty of taking our focus off the benevolence of the divine promise of the Gospel and casting us into the abyss of doubt and endless argumentation. See CR 21, 652 and 658 – 59; Preus, 41 and 43. Again, John Calvin and others who affirmed a particular formulation of predestination are the targets. 67 CR 21, 658; Preus, 43. Melanchthon’s also cited John 6:45, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” Following this quotation, he then cited Chrysostom’s commentary on this passage, in which Chrysostom concluded “He who draws, draws the willing” (PG 51, 143). The use of this particular quotation will become controversial, as will be explained below.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of the Cappadocians in the Debate Over Free Will

203

against sin and temptation. If the struggle were not great and if the will were not to be fully engaged in the struggle, how else are we to make sense of the command?68 Again, Melanchthon asserted that struggle is possible because “even though there is great weakness, yet there is still some freedom in the will, since it is indeed already being aided by the Holy Spirit and can do something in preventing outward falls into sin.”69 The will has no place in salvation. Yet, when speaking of those who are believers (de tota vita piorum loquamur), the Gospel has an effect upon the will so that it begins to function in a manner less bound to sin than before. Melanchthon cited several biblical examples to show that the will responds to and is enabled by divine grace; God does not, as it were, “turn stones into figs.” First, when confronted by the prophet Nathan with the divine rebuke and the promise, David was brought to sincere repentance; “his will did something (et agit aliquid eius voluntas), and freely made his confession.”70 Likewise, when Joseph was tempted by Potiphar’s wife, the Spirit of God stirred within him, Joseph convincing himself to trust God’s command and so he fled.71 Melanchthon then cited St. Paul, affirming that all who believe in the gospel (that is, make an act of the will to trust in the promises), enjoy the fruits of the Spirit.72 In the last section of his argument, Melanchthon discussed those events which do not originate from within ourselves, but are imposed on us by outside factors, such as when David was exiled by his son or when Mark Anthony’s desire to be the sole ruler of Rome was thwarted by Augustus. These things, however, speak to divine providence and serve to prompt us to set aside our self-confidence and see our help as coming from God.73 Melanchthon concluded Article 4 with a word of encouragement to the readers, i. e., the pastors and leaders of the Church, by reminding them of the words of St. Paul: “It is God who works in you that you should will and also do such things as are pleasing to Him.”74 Melanchthon reasserted his two-fold thesis 68 CR 21, 658; Preus, 43: “[God] commands us to learn, that is, to hear the Word, not to resist it, to assent to the Word of God, not to dissent. These points are clear if we in true sorrow and true prayer have learned what the nature of the struggle of the will is and, if it could remain firm, there would be absolutely no struggle, no conflict no anguish in the saints. But since the struggle is great and difficult, the will is not idle but assents weakly (voluntas non est otiosa, sed languide assentitur). Unless it is encouraged to pray by these promises and examples and unless it is aided by the Holy Spirit, it would rush to destruction.” 69 CR 21, 660; Preus, 44. 70 CR 21, 659; Preus, 43. 71 CR 21, 660, Preus, 44. 72 CR 21, 659; Preus, 43 – 44; citing Rom 1:16; 2 Cor 3:8; and Gal 3:14. 73 CR 21, 661; Preus, 45: “Quanquam igitur est aliqua libertas in electione, tamen interim et haec impedimenta consideremus, ut discamus deponere nostri fiduciam et petere auxilium a Deo.” 74 CR 21, 662; Preus, 45: “This admonition and consolation must always be planted in our

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

204

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

of divine grace. First, because of Christ, we have received the imputed righteousness of God. This is due entirely to divine providence and is in no way a result of any initiation or preparation on our part. Second, because we are made pleasing to God as if we had already perfectly fulfilled the Law, we receive through grace the help in fulfilling the Law that we so desperately need. Grace has aroused our hearts and stirred our minds. Grace calls upon us to trust in the promise, to embrace the struggle against sin, to love others as we have been loved. To do these, we again call upon God’s grace to strengthen us and God has promised that our prayer will not be in vain.75 Article 4 is not the last place in the Loci of 1543 that he addressed the relationship between grace and good works. Later, in Article 9, he offered an extended examination of the topic, carefully elaborating on what he had said earlier in the work. Since there are no substantially new arguments, I will highlight only a few points. First, Melanchthon began the discussion of good works within the strict confines of their relationship to grace and salvation. Article 9 follows a long discussion of grace in Article 8. Article 9 begins by affirming that good works are the result — not the cause — of justification.76 Good works are only possible because of divine grace.77 Indeed, good works are one of the means of grace by which God strengthens us.78 Melanchthon then goes on to explain the phenomenology of grace giving rise to good works as well as the sense in which

75

76

77 78

hearts. And you as pastor [or better, teacher, magistratus] and leader [gubernas] of the Church, whether of young people or families, shall provide certain things and properly administer them with great care; but know that in this very action good things will follow if God aids you, as Ps 127:1 says. . . . But such confusing judgments have been made concerning this question because men for the most part are so foolish and live without discipline, without concern, without any exercise of faith or prayer. How can people like this distinguish among the degrees of action or difference in objectives?” CR 21, 664 & 665; Preus, 46. The Heubtartikel affirms the same. First, no one may please God or follow God’s will without the prevenient grace of God in Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But this was not some mere historical event. Rather, it continues in God’s efficacious work in the Church through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Thus reborn, we are made holy and may, only with divine grace, begin to live lives pleasing to God’s will and purpose. This rebirth and growth in good works is to be understood less as something we do in response but rather something God’s grace effects and enables within us (146 – 48). CR 21, 762; Preus, 97. See likewise article 9 of Heubtartikel, ibid., 287 – 301. Again, this article is in harmony with the articulations of 1543. However, the 1553 work has much more emphasis on the indwelling of the Son and the Holy Spirit as the causes of good works (289). This added emphasis is the result of the controversy with Osiander. A detailed study of Melanchthon’s understanding of the role of good works has been accomplished by Carl E. Maxcey, Bona Opera: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine in Philipp Melanchthon (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1980) and more recently by Gregory Graybill, Evangelical Free Will: Philipp Melanchthon’s Journey on the Origins of Faith (London and New York: Oxford University Press), 2010. CR 21, 765; Preus, 98. CR 21, 766: Preus, 99.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of the Cappadocians in the Debate Over Free Will

205

we can (and cannot) speak of rewards for our good works.79 In the only monograph dedicated to the topic, Carl Maxcey has shown that, throughout his career, Melanchthon affirmed the necessity of good works as pleasing to God; that is, we were created for the purpose of doing good works.80 From the evidence presented above, it is clear that Melanchthon affirmed that the human will (after justification) is not idle in the movement towards a growth in grace and increase in acts of love. This movement itself is only as a result of grace and sustained only by the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church. Melanchthon’s critics, past and present, have taken this truth out of context and assert that Melanchthon had reintroduced his alleged long latent Erasmianism.81 They charge that Melanchthon rejected Luther’s affirmation of humanity’s completely passive role in justification as Stoic. In its place, Melanchthon reenshrined the once toppled idol of self-justification, since he now claimed that the individual was responsible (at least in part) for his or her own salvation. Yet, as we have carefully demonstrated, critics (past and present) who levy this charge against Melanchthon misconstrue the time and place in which the human will is active. According to Melanchthon, the human will is never the initiative for justification (as Olson claims). Justification is purely God’s initiative in which, because of Christ alone, righteousness is imputed to a sinful humanity. In this divine act, the will is indeed passive.82 Justification is a done deal. There is no cooperation from humanity nor is justification awarded on any inherent merit

79 Before doing so, Melanchthon says yet again “But first of all we must establish this point: although in the regenerate there must be a beginning of obedience and the righteousness of a good conscience, yet sins still remain in them, that is to say, the disease which is born in us, the doubts, the ignorance of many things; or, in other words, they do not fear God as they ought nor burn with love towards him as the Law demands” (CR 21, 768; Preus, 100). That established, he describes three steps in the regenerate Christian’s life. 80 See Maxcey, Bona Opera, 294. 81 See Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002). An extended quotation from this paean to Flacius illustrates the point: “Explaining the bondage of the will, Luther had explained that there was only once [sic] cause of conversion, ‘God’s work in us, without us.’ But in the 1535 Loci Communes, Melanchthon listed three — the word, the Holy Spirit, and the human will. Now that Luther was dead, Melanchthon distanced himself yet further from him. The 1548 edition of the Loci Communes, the first after the Reformer’s death, is ‘a milestone on the path on which Melanchthon had taken back to Erasmus.’ Luther’s doctrine of the bound will, he decided, was stoic. ‘In Luther’s lifetime and after,’ he wrote, ‘I rejected these Stoic and Manichaean follies.’ . . . Melanchthon now accepted Erasmus’s notion of free will: ‘the ability to apply oneself to grace.’ ‘God draws us,” he wrote, quoting John Chrysostom, ‘but draws him who wants to be drawn.’ In the 1559 Loci Communes he has it both ways. The initiative is God’s . . . and it is man’s” (72). 82 CR 21, 655; Preus, 42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

206

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

within humanity. Further, good works do not complete justification.83 Here Luther and Melanchthon are in full accord. Melanchthon also realized, however, that God does not work upon humanity as a craftsman does a block of wood or stone. Rather, God calls us to conversion and good works. In the call to do good works, we are likewise called to trust — that is, have faith — that God’s promise of grace is efficacious. Though not without initial and persistent divine aid, we are called to do something. In the call to action, humanity is not called to trust in its own abilities (even after justification) but to a trust that God’s declaration is efficacious. That is, the Holy Spirit will provide the means by which the will may perform good works. Here again, Luther and Melanchthon are in full accord.84 What is more, Melanchthon is clear that perseverance in good works requires God’s continuous action; it is not a singular event in which God sets us upon the right path and then lets us go. Without God’s continuous action through the Holy Spirit, we would immediately fall back into sin.85 Finally, good works in no way complete justification (as Erasmus had claimed and the Council of Trent would affirm). Rather, good works show that our justification (through grace alone) has been made efficacious (through the gracious working of the Holy Spirit upon the human will); in asking, God has given to us what was first promised as a result of justification.86 Let us now turn our attention to see what role Melanchthon assigned to Basil in articulating his position.

83 This suggestion (following Augustine, that justification occurs because of the future righteous deeds the Holy Spirit will work in the elect) was made by Swabian reformer Johannes Brenz and rejected by Melanchthon. Like his rebuke of “Stoicism,” Melanchthon argued that all such formulations should be avoided (lest people be cast into an inexplicable labyrinth) and instead preachers and teachers should focus on the Law and the Promises (i. e., the Gospel). See his letter to Brenz, 30 September 1531 (MBW 1193 [T5, 208]/CR 2, 547). 84 For but one example, compare Luther’s previously cited admonishment to those receiving the Eucharist to Melanchthon’s comment from the Loci 1543, “For the will could disregard the Word of God, as Saul did of his own free will. But the mind, hearing and sustaining itself, does not resist and indulge in hesitation, but with the aid of the Holy Spirit tries to assent, in this contest the will is not idle” (CR 21, 658; Preus, 43). 85 CR 21, 656; Preus, 42: “The blessing of God is immeasurable and indescribable because it promises to us the help of the Holy Spirit. As Christ says, Luke 11:13 . . . If we were not helped by the Holy Spirit, even sadder moral lapses and worse confusion would befall us as has happened and still happens to the gentiles and the Anabaptists in their ravings. Further, we must hold to this statement as true: The human will without the Holy Spirit cannot produce the spiritual desires which God demands, namely, a true fear of God, a true confidence in the mercy of God, true love for God, patience and courage in afflictions and at the approach of death.” 86 CR 21, 660. In his translation for this section, Preus alludes to different biblical citations but he captured the meaning of the latter half of the text: “Faith is encouraged to ask, and we need to ask because of our negligence and rebellion. Furthermore, our rebellion is nourished by our neglect of thinking on this precept and this promise of Christ” (44).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Basil in the Controversy over Grace

4.

207

Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Basil in the Controversy over Grace

The Basilian quotation cited more than any other by Melanchthon concerning grace is: only desire it and God has preceded. The majority of these citations date from the 1540s and 1550s, eleven times in all. According to Meijering, this quotation is from Ps-Basil’s sermon On Penance.87 However, the reference in the Migne is slightly different, reading: l|mom ¢]kgsom, Áa· aqt¹¬ pÂoapamtø, or in the Latin, Solum velis, et ipse praecurrit. This is a legitimate variance, given the context, since Melanchthon simply supplied the antecedent to clarify the meaning of the quotation: Should you only wish it, God has gone before you. Here we have an expression of both the freedom of human will (“should you only wish it”) inexorably tied to prevenient grace (i. e., God’s initiative to move toward humanity). The first time Melanchthon quoted this sermon is in the Loci of 1535 (though not included in the 1533 lectures) and he repeats in the 1543 edition. The quotation appears nearly every time Melanchthon has the opportunity to discuss the freedom of the will, the necessity of good works, or prevenient grace (though for good reason he does not use that term) in subsequent works and letters.88 In 1545, Melanchthon also revised the Enarratio libri II. Ethicorum Aristoteles (1529) to include a passage discussing the cause of virtue.89 87 Ps-Basil, De paenitentia 3 (MPG 31, 1480 – 81). The fact that the work is also now known as Pseudo-Basil reaffirms a point I have made in chapter four about how the Cappadocian canon of the sixteenth century was not our own. De paenitentia is now attributed to Eusebius of Emesa; see CPG §3530. 88 Loci communes, 1535 (CR 21, 376); Loci communes 1543 (CR 21, 658); Letter to John Calvin, 1543 (MBW 3245/CR 5, 109); Annotationes in Evangelia, 1544 (CR 14, 311); Ethicae doctrina elementa, 1550 (CR 16, 193 & 240); Decanus Collegii Facultatis Philosophicae [a notice for the students], 1548 (MBW 5029/CR 6, 783); Explicatio Symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, 436 & 544); Oratio de precatione, 1551 (CR 11, 988); Disputatio de polita Ecclesiae seu ministerio et ordinationibus, n.d. (CR 12, 491); and Postilla, n.d. (CR 25, 74). Parts of the Ethicae doctrina elementa have been translated into English by John Monfasani, Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts: Moral Philosophy, vol. 1, ed. Jill Kraye (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge, 1997), 108 – 19. A complete edition of the work is available, Ethicae doctrinae elementa et enarratio: Libri quinti ethicorum, ed. Günter Frank and Michael Beyer (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2008). 89 CR 16, 327: “In doctrina christiana sic traduntur causae actionum, ut sint tres.” The quotation actually appears twice in this work; the first time in both Latin and Greek: “Nam hae causae iungendae sunt, sicut scriptum est (Mt 13:12, 25:29; Mk 4:25, Lk 8:18). Habenti dabitur et 2 Corinthios 6(:1): Adhortamur vos, ne frustra gratiam Dei recipiatis. Et Basilius inquit, Tantum velis, et Deus prius occurret, l|mom ¢]kgsom, Áa· ¢e¹¬ pÂoapamtø.” The 1545 edition changed “recipiatis” to “ne frustra gratiam Dei accipiatis” (ibid., 328). The quotation is repeated later on page 330, this time accompanied by a quotation of Chrysostom. Biblical references are as follows: “For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Mt

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

208

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

Also worth noting is the fact that alongside this quotation from Basil there is also often a quotation attributed to Augustine: praeeunte gratia, comitante voluntate; where grace has preceded, the will follows.90 Again, we see that Melanchthon understood Basil and Augustine to be harmonious in their support for his understanding of grace. Another characteristic of the context of these quotations underlines a point we saw in discussion about the Loci of 1543: Melanchthon’s concern is to emphasize that, when faced both with the command to do good works and realization of our human frailty, we are to take comfort in the fact that part of God’s imputed justification to us is the impartation of the Holy Spirit which enables us to perform good works.91

5.

Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Controversy over Grace

Basil was not the only Cappadocian employed by Melanchthon in explaining the doctrine of grace. Melanchthon employed the following quotation from St. Gregory Nazianzen: p÷m t¹ Áato¢o}lemom pa± ¢eoO 1sti, d]dotai d³ to?¬ Áakoul]moir Áa· outy me}esi; in the Latin, Omnis virtus a Deo est: datur autem vocantibus et annuentibus, non repugnantibus.92 This quotation, which I have found only six times in Melanchthon’s works, appears in works dated from the late 1550s.93 A seventh occurrence can be added, when we take into account that

90

91 92 93

13:12); “For to every one who has will more be given, and who will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Mt 25:29); “For to him who has more will be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Mk 4:25); “Take heed then how you hear ; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away” (Lk 8:18); and “Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1). A variant form of this quotation, without attribution to Augustine, was also used by Melanchthon, “praecedente gratia, comitante voluntate”; see Letter to August, Duke of Electoral Saxony, 9 May 1559 (MBW 8886/CR 9, 767 – 68) and Propositiones de Consensu Veterum, 1559 (CR 12, 651). According to Meijering, this is a reference to Augustine, Ep. 186, 3, 10 (PL 33, 819; CPL §284); see Meijering, 27 – 28. CR 21, 665; Preus, 46. Note that “those who come near” (annuentibus) is missing in the Greek though its addition in the Latin is not contradictory to the overall meaning. Responsiones Scriptae a Philippo Melanthone ad impios articulos Bavaricae inquisitionis, 1558 (StAVI, 323); Letter to Mollerus, 1558 (MBW 8806/CR 9, 669 – 70), here Melanchthon is sending his response to the Bavarian inquisition and introduces Gregory’s work with a reference to Flacius; Quaestio proposita a D. Balthasaro Neandro docente iuventutem literariam in schola Vratislaviensi, ca. 1557 (CR 10, 872); Oratio de Gregorio Nazianzeno, 1558 (CR 12, 283); Propositiones de Consensu Veterum, 1559 (CR 12, 651); and Postilla Melanchthonis, between 1553 – 1560 (CR 25, 478). Also of interest is the frequency with which Melanchthon quoted this declaration in hand-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Controversy over Grace

209

this is the quotation displayed in the second portrait of Melanchthon from the Cranach workshop in 1560. The reference to Gregory is a free quotation from Oration 37.94 The late appearance of this quotation is intriguing, since it was translated by Oecolampadius in 1519, a work which Melanchthon would most likely have known in Latin translation.95 Whatever the reason, it is clear that the quotation was used by Melanchthon in conjunction with his refutation of Matthias Flacius. That Flacius was the intended target is most clearly seen in Melanchthon’s letter of 1559 to Duke August of Elector Saxony.96 In affirming that “all virtue comes from God, however, it is given to those who are called and to those who draw near, not to those who are opposed,” Melanchthon is attacking the idea (promoted by Flacius) that the human will is always completely passive in every instance of the workings of divine grace. He asserted that such ideas were nothing but the fallacies of the Stoics and Manichees. Melanchthon arrayed the authority of Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, and John Chrysostom against this notion. Though no Father is cited by name, the context and allusions made by Melanchthon are now familiar : “It is known that God places the Holy Spirit in the heart, who resides there, and though strife remains a persistent part of life, it is so that faith may become stronger . . . and thus we have this rule: where grace precedes the will follows. Both [aspects] are true. If the person were a block of wood, there would be no struggle.”97

5.1

The Controversy over Grace during the Augsburg Interim (1548)

It is necessary to discuss briefly how the Augsburg Interim of 1548 forced intraLutheran debates over the nature of grace to erupt and note that the topic remained a contentious issue in Lutheran theology, even after the promulgation of the Formula of Concord (1577). At issue was whether good works were necessary for salvation. Evangelicals adamantly affirmed that the justification of

94 95

96 97

written inscriptions to books gifted to friends or as an “introduction” (that is, setting the tone by which the reader would read the text) to theological works. See Hans-Peter Hasse, “Melanchthon und die ‘Alba amicorum’: Melanchthon’s Theologie im Spiegel seiner Bucheintragungen,” Der Theologe Melanchthon (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2000), 313 – 16. Oration 37,13 (MPG 36, 297; CPG §3010). See Oecolampadius, In dictum Matthaei (VD16 G3048, G3052, and G3053) and also Pirkheimer’s translation of 1531, entitled In dictum Evangelii (G3082). The Greek version of the oration does not seem to have been printed until 1550 (G3019). See Way, Catalogus, 147, 152, and 53, respectively. MBW 8886/CR 9, 763 – 775. See Letter to Duke August of Saxony (MBW 8886/CR 9, 763 – 775), in which Melanchthon protested the slanders made against him by gnesio-Lutherans in connection with the Weimar Confutation (766 – 69).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

210

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

humanity by God through Christ resulted in a “new obedience.” This position was authoritatively established in the Augsburg Confession in 1530, especially Article 6.98 In fact, Article 20 of the Augsburg Confession boasts further that good works are exercised most in Evangelical parishes, since there the people are encouraged to perform good works not as “merits” earned before God but as acts of worship and sincere love in response to the unmerited gift of justifying grace. Therefore, given the extremes of the antinomians and the charges of Roman Catholic opponents, Evangelical preachers and theologians emphasized the full and positive role assigned to good works as the fruit of justification. The Augsburg Interim was promulgated on 15 May 1548 and was enforced by the occupation of imperial troops within Lutheran territories. The goal was to bring the Evangelical territories back in line with the doctrine and praxis of the Roman Catholic church. The Interim left the Evangelicals with little more than married priests and the chalice for the laity (both pending approval of the Council of Trent). The Interim was a despised reality for the Evangelicals, though the final text was not as harshly worded as the original draft had been.99 Controversial issues were crafted with ambiguous language. For instance, Article 7 of the Interim, “On Love and Good Works,” asserts that good works flow from justification and are the necessary fruits of justification, for which God seeks to reward us.100 However, the article goes on to affirm the necessity of performing good works as commanded by the Church, which left the door open for mandated fasts and other acts of piety, the necessity of which has long been rejected by Evangelicals.101 Melanchthon denounced the text of the Interim in July of 1548. Further, the princes of the Evangelical territories (even Moritz of Saxony) refused to accept 98 Article 4 declares that humanity is justified only as a result of unmerited divine grace through Christ alone. Article 5 declares that God has established the ministry of the Church so that the gospel can be proclaimed and so that through these means the Holy Spirit may produce faith within those who hear the gospel. Then, Article 6 asserts “It is also taught among us that faith should yield good fruit and good works and that a person must do such good works as God has commanded for God’s sake but not place trust in them as if thereby to earn grace before God” (BC, 40/ BSLK, 60). 99 The first draft, called the “December Formula” (written December 1547), was condemned by the reformed-minded members of Emperor Charles V’s circle, namely Julius Pflug, the bishop of Naumburg-Zeits. He was given charge of the revisions, with the assistance of Johannes Gropper (who had also helped lead the reforms of the archbishopric of Cologne under the Cardinal-Elector Hermann von Wied) and Johannes Agricola, the Lutheran leader accused by Luther of being an antinomian, who now served the Elector of Brandenburg. The final version of the Augsburg Interim resulted. For an indepth analysis of Melanchthon’s activities during the Interim and its aftermath, see Scheible, Melanchthon, 182 – 205. 100 See Article 7, “Augsburg Interim,” Sources and Contexts, 153. 101 Augsburg Interim, Sources and Contexts, 154.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Controversy over Grace

211

the text. In an effort to attempt a compromise (i. e., some but not full compliance with the old church practices outlined in the Interim), Moritz asked a committee of Evangelical theologians from Wittenberg and Leipzig to draft a revised version of the Interim, which would serve as a counter-offer.102 The principle author of this draft, which has become known as the “Leipzig Interim,” was Melanchthon. Melanchthon and his Wittenberg colleagues were placed in a nearly impossible situation: they were to defend the Evangelical faith in terms that would be acceptable to the victorious (and occupying) Imperial and papal representatives. Therein, certain theological positions were more clearly articulated along Evangelical lines while also retaining much of the language from the Augsburg Interim. Namely, Melanchthon did not use the phrase “by faith alone” and affirmed the necessity of good works.103 While defending core Evangelical positions (such as justification by grace though faith), Melanchthon and the other electoral Saxon theologians argued for acceptance of adiaphora (indifferent things; viz., anointing with oil, a bishop’s power to ordain, vestments, etc.) for the benefit of peace and order. The document was presented at the Diet of Leipzig in December of 1548. It was a futile effort, as both the Evangelical and Imperial representatives rejected the document outright. The issue might have ended there but when the “Leipzig” Interim was published (without authorization and without Melanchthon’s knowledge) two new theological controversies erupted: the adiaphoristic controversy and, somewhat later, whether good works were necessary for salvation. Matthias Flacius, 102 See Source and Context, 183 and Timothy J. Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 63 – 64. The “Leipzig Interim” was never formally adopted. Günther Wartenberg suggested that Moritz never intended to use the document at all but rather used it as a stalling technique to solidify his authority before breaking his alliance with the Emperor. See Günther Wartenberg, “Interims,” Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, vol. 2, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (Oxford: Oxford University, 1996), 319 – 20. See also Joachim Mehlhausen, “Interim,” TRE, vol. 16, 230 – 37; Irene Dingel, ed., Politik und Bekenntnis: Die Reactionen auf das Interim von 1548 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2006); Günther Wartenberg, “Philipp Melanchthon und die sächsisch-albertinische Interimspolitik,” Lutherjahrbuch 55 (1982), 60 – 82; and Robert Kolb, “Historical Background of the Formula of Concord,” A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, ed. Robert D. Preus and Wilbert H. Rosin (St. Louis: Concordia, 1978), 17 – 26. 103 For instance, see the Article on Justification in the Leipzig Interim, in which both prevenient grace and the necessity of good works are emphasized: “Although God does not make human creatures righteous through the merit of their own work, which they perform, but through his mercy, freely, without our merit — so we boast not of ourselves but of Christ, through whose merit alone we are redeemed from sin and made righteous — nonetheless, the merciful God does not deal with human creatures as with a block of wood but draws them in such a manner that their will cooperates, if they are of the age of reason. They do not receive Christ’s benefits if the will and heart are not moved by prevenient grace, so that they stand in fear of God’s wrath and detest sin” (Source and Context, 185).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

212

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

Nicholas von Amsdorf, Johann Weigand, and Nicholas Gallus all became outspoken critics of the Interim (both as a whole and especially of the document presented at Leipzig). Suddenly, Melanchthon — who had been both obedient to the request of his lord and having to make the best of a bad situation in spite of his own theological objections — and his colleagues Georg Major and Johannes Bugenhagen were turned into a traitors of the Evangelical faith; ones who were too willing to compromise with Imperial and Roman authorities. This controversy had the sting of personal bitterness as well: at one time, all of these individuals had been colleagues or former students at the University of Wittenberg. In 1551, Georg Major entered the fray by defending the wording of the Augsburg Interim, which declared that good works were necessary for salvation.104 The necessity of the New Obedience under grace had to be affirmed lest the Evangelical cause be subjected to another antinomian controversy. The key to understanding this controversy lies in the how one understands “necessary”: are good works the fruit or cause of faith? Likewise, how are we to understand salvation: do we mean justification or do we mean the blessedness that comes from being saved? Major’s unguarded articulation that good works were necessary for salvation provided the proof the gnesio-Lutherans needed to assert that Major (and Melanchthon) held a crypto-Romanist view of the free human will.105 Amsdorf responded by declaring that good works are actually detri104 “For man must not be a stone or block, which does neither evil nor good. But faith and the Holy Spirit and Christ, who dwells in us through faith, are active and powerful in us and drive us so that we live according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh, and produces all the fruits of the Spirit. For it is impossible that a man has true faith and does not at the same time have all kinds of good works. The sun cannot exist without shining, so where Christ and the Holy Spirit dwell in a man, faith shines forth through good works. . . . Therefore, it is certainly true that these virtues, faith, love, and hope and others must be in us and are necessary for salvation”, Auff des Ehrenwirdigen Herrn Nicolas von Amsdorff schrifft, so irtzung neulich Mense Novembri Anno 1551, wider Georgen Major öffentlich im Druck ausgegangen. Antwort (Wittenberg: Rhau, 1552), cited in Olson, Matthias Flacius, 281. See also Irene Dingel, Günther Wartenberg, and Michael Beyer, ed., Georg Major (1502 – 1574): Ein Theologe der Wittenberger Reformation (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005). Major undoubtedly knew the phrase from Melanchthon, who had used it in the 1535 edition of the Loci communes (CR 21, 429) and repeated verbatim in the Loci of 1543 (CR 21, 762; Preus, 97): “Plane igitur et clare dico: Obedientia nostra, hoc est, iustitia bonae conscientiae seu operum, quae Deus nobis praecipit, necessario sequi debet reconciliationem.” See also Scheible, Melanchthon, 203 – 5. Commenting on the attacks of Flacius and the gnesioLutherans, Scheible wrote: “Doktrinäre haben es leichter. Sie wissen immer, wo das Gute, wo das Böse zu suchen ist, wann man sich richtig oder falsch verhält” (ibid., 192). 105 See Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice, 65. Wengert comments: “Major and von Amsdorf did not agree on terms, especially on the meaning of the phrase, ‘good works are necessary for salvation [blessedness].’ What von Amsdorf understood as salvation, Major construed as the blessed fruit of saving faith. What Major understood as a necessary consequence, von Amsdorf treated as an actual cause. What von Amsdorf viewed as ex-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Citation of St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Controversy over Grace

213

mental to salvation. Flacius affirmed that indeed the human will was completely passive not only in justification but in the entire working of the Holy Spirit. Major immediately moved to explain in greater detail what he meant. As we have seen, Melanchthon and Major did not mean the same as the authors of the Augsburg Interim. As far back as the mid-1520s, when he had attacked Erasmus, Melanchthon had consistently explained the limited sense in which good works are the necessary fruits of a Christian life as a result of justification. The damage was done, however. Melanchthon himself admitted that the unguarded use of the phrase was unfortunate and could mislead the laity if taken out of context. Nevertheless, he continued to affirm that good works were necessary as they are commanded by God.106 Mutual retaliation through polemical treatises formed the relationship between the so-called Philippists and the gnesio-Lutherans until the Formula of Concord.107 In 1577, after all of the major protagonists in the dispute over the necessity of good works had died, several Lutheran theologians gathered in order to repair the damage of the preceding generation’s polemics and draft a comprehensive but concise articulation of the Lutheran position on this and many other controversial issues.108 The resulting document is known as the Formula of Concord, was gathered with the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, the Smalcald Articles, and Luther’s two Cate-

ternal deeds, Major took as the outpourings of a believing heart.” See also Irene Dingel, ed., Nicholaus von Amsdorf (1483 – 1565): Zwischen Reformation und Politik (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008). 106 See Melanchthon’s letter to the Synod at Nordhausen, 13 January 1555 (MBW 7385/CR 8, 410 – 14). There, after affirming that good works are distinct (though not separated) from justification and that good works are only enabled by God’s continued grace, Melanchthon defends the use of the term “necessary” since Christ and Paul had used them, not as they apply to justification but rather as part of God’s will for creation. 107 A series of popular poems and pamphlets was produced. The gnesio-Lutherans published several tracts against the “Interim Dragon,” rich in illustration. The Philippists were a bit more refined but no less severe. They published several poems rich in classical allusions against Flacius and others; one of which were entitled “The Synod of the Birds.” After the death of the king Swan/Luther, the birds meet to select their new leader. For eloquence, leadership should pass to the Nightingale/Melanchthon but others are distracted by the loud ravings of the Cuckoo/Flacius and the Rooster/Gallus. The second was “Giants Scattered by the Noise of an Ass,” a reference to a story in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. See Olsen, Matthias Flacius, 291 – 93 and 317 – 20. 108 Again, I draw the reader’s attention to Robert Kolb’s collection of essays, Luther’s Heirs Define His Legacy, as most insightful. The work of Irene Dingel is also very enlightening since she reveals that the debate continued after the Formula, see Concordia controversa: Die Öffentlichen Diskussionen um das Lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1996) and “Ablehnung und Aneignung: Die Bewertung der Autorität Martin Luthers in der Auseinandersetzungen um die Konkordienformel,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 105 (1994): 35 – 57.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

214

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

chisms, in order to form an authoritative collection of confessional documents, the Book of Concord.109

6.

Melanchthon’s Appeals to St. Gregory Nazianzen for the Virtue of Forgiveness

Finally, it is worth noting that in the midst of such intra-Lutheran controversies, the elderly Melanchthon often cited the Cappadocians as models of exemplary behavior, especially Gregory Nazianzen. This was a time when he was anxious about the ever-constant threat of war, exhausted by age, and bitter over the polemics with individuals whom he had once counted as friends or former 109 In Articles 2 (Free Will) and 4 (Good Works), the Formula offers nothing contrary to what had been previously established by Melanchthon. In some sense, the authors of the Formula — many of them former students of the Praeceptor — were offering an authoritative interpretation of Melanchthon’s works. Article 2 begins by affirming that because the human will can be discussed under four different circumstances, one has to carefully distinguish when and where it is appropriate to speak of human freedom (BSLK, 776; BC 491). The unregenerate will is radically turned against God. However, once regenerated by the Holy Spirit the will is turned to God as a result of God’s grace (BSLK 777; BC 492). All our willing depends on God’s willing; but God’s will is that the regenerate do not resist. The authors of the Formula specifically mention the previously oft-repeated phrase from John Chrysostom, Deus trahit, sed volentem trahit, among the negative theses; that is, ideas they wish to counter. The quotation is from Chrysostom’s fourth homily On the Change of Names [from Saul to Paul], in which he refers to John 6:44 (MPG 51, 143; CPG §4372); “ý d³ 6kÁym, t¹m bouk|lemom 6kÁei.” It had been used by Melanchthon in the Loci of 1543 (CR 21, 376; Preus, 43). The three causes are rejected. However, they do not condemn the statement, but rather only those who interpret it incorrectly to assert that one may either prepare for grace or, once redeemed, exercise an independent will to make use of the grace given (BSLK 780; BC 493). It is only as a result of grace that “the new human will not only accepts grace but also cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the work that proceeds from it” (BSLK 780 – 81; BC 494). Likewise, Article 4 is careful to distinguish the terminology used in which we can assert that “good works are necessary for salvation.” The article begins by recognizing that the two principal parties had not properly understood each other in the use of the word “necessary” (BSLK 786; BC, 498). The article condemns those who would continue to use the phrases “good works are necessary for salvation” or “good works are detrimental to salvation” in a bald and unreflective manner (BSLK 789; BC, 499). Rather, we should understand the following: good works must be excluded from the Church’s discussion of either salvation or justification, yet, in those who have been reborn in the Holy Spirit, good works are obligatory (BSLK 786; BC, 498). They must necessarily flow from a willing and grateful heart. In this sense, and only in this sense, are the words “necessary” and “must” to be understood; any understanding of “necessary” or “necessity” out of compulsion or fear are to be excluded (BSLK 786 – 89; BC, 498 – 99). Thus, we see that the authors of the Formula, many of whom were former students of Melanchthon, restored a careful and balanced presentation of their teacher’s work over against the distortions of both his enemies and over-enthusiastic supporters — many of whom had also been Melanchthon’s students!

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Melanchthon’s Appeals to St. Gregory Nazianzen for the Virtue of Forgiveness

215

students. This section will focus on the occurrence of three quotations from Gregory Nazianzen, which are not doctrinal and come primarily from his poetry. Again, this underlines that Melanchthon read Gregory not only to score polemical points but also for pleasure and consolation. The first quotation concerns an expression of hope and the value of patience, cited at least three times. The first occurrence that I have found dates from 1546, when the rumbling of war against the Protestant territories was beginning.110 In the midst of such anxiety, Melanchthon began a letter to Paul Eber with the following quotation: Oqdem ovtyr eq¦Âa_meim Bl÷¬ eUy¢em, ¢r sumeid¹r Áa¢a¹m, Áa· 1kp_de¬ !ca¢a_, inquit Nazianzenus vere et preclare. Sed spes unde pendeant multum refert. Nobis quidem spes nostra a solo Deo aeterno Patre Domini nostri Iesu Christi pendent, non a praesidiis humanis.111

Such trust in God alone leads us to emulate Gregory Nazianzen, who said “Nothing at all is wont to gladden us as much as a pure conscience and good expectations.” The same is repeated in a letter to Johannes Lang in Erfurt a year later.112 In a third letter, dated 1553 and addressed to Prince George of Anhalt, Melanchthon again referred to Gregory as a model of patience in the midst of suffering; though this time he does not offer this quotation but mentioned Gregory’s deposition in Constantinople.113 Yet, despite such hopeful expectations, travails did assail Melanchthon. When they did, he again turned to Gregory Nazianzen, this time for some sage advice on when and how to offer forgiveness. The first occurrence of the second quotation that I found is from 1555, in which Melanchthon is defending his behavior during the Augsburg Interim in a letter to Hieronymus Weller.114 Citing Gregory in Greek, Melanchthon wrote “if you know that you a debtor, lend kindness 110 Melanchthon’s letters during this year show a great deal of concern for the Italian Wars of 1542 – 1546, in which England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Papal States, and the Ottoman Empire were all engaged in a complicated struggle against one another. In the treaty of Cr¦py (1544), Francis was forced to make a separate peace with the Emperor and was unable to support the Smalkaldic League when the Emperor attacked in 1546. 111 Letter to Paul Eber, 30 November 1546 (MBW 4471/CR 6, 295). The quotation is actually from John Chrysostom, Contra eos qui subintroductas habent virgines (PG 47, 511; CPG §4311). This is an instance in which Meijering charges Melanchthon with being “careless” with his sources (Meijering, 60). 112 Letter to Johannes Lang, 15 May 1547 (MBW 4741/CR 6,538): “Oqdem ovtyr eq¦Âa_meim Bl÷¬ eUy¢em, ¢r sumeid¹r Áa¢a¹m, Áa· 1kp_de¬ !ca¢a_. Hac nos consolatione nunc quoque sustentemus. At quae spes, inquit aliquis, pacis esse potest, cum belli flammae velut incendia paullatim latius vagentur? Non pendit nobis ab humanis coniecturis sed a promissionibus Dei immotis.” 113 Letter to Prince George of Anhalt, 1 April 1553 (MBW 6788/CR 8, 63 – 64). 114 Letter to Hieronymus Weller, 12 February 1555 (MBW 7408/CR 8,427).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

216

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

beforehand. For compassion requites compassion and God.”115 Melanchthon argued that his moderate tone during the imposition of the Interim was an attempt to be gracious in defeat in the hope that one’s victor would be gracious in return. Even if one’s enemy should nonetheless respond harshly, God will see such kindness and will reward it in kind. The quotation appears five other times. Three of the five quotations are found in letters from the late 1550s in which Melanchthon complained of the cruel treatment he has received from his opponents, especially Flacius.116 In the midst of such assaults, he was resolved to repay his enemies with kindness and Christian charity, enduring all things in patient suffering.117 The final two instances of the quotation occur in a more didactic settings. The first is from a postilla concerning Luke 6:27 – 36, in which Melanchthon warns his listeners against hypocrisy.118 Here, used the quotation to emphasize that one is always indebted to God. Therefore, one must forgive the debts (i. e., the shortcomings) of others, even one’s enemies. The final occurrence dates from 1552 – 53, in which Melanchthon attached an appendix to the editions of the Loci communes in which terms commonly used in the Church are defined. Among these is 1pie_Áeia, which is forbearance, fairness, or reasonableness. Melanchthon offered scriptural examples from Phil 4:5 and Luke 6:37. Following on Christ’s admonition to “forgive and you will be forgiven,” Melanchthon quoted Gregory here as an example. The last quotation I wish to discuss here I have found only twice. It is particularly interesting because it involves an obscure literary reference to a work attributed to Homer. The first reference occurred in a letter to Justus Jonas the Younger dated January 5, 1558. The quotation occurred in the context of criticisms from Flacius (this time, that Melanchthon did not respond sharply enough to Andreas Osiander). As we have seen so often, Melanchthon is being criticized for not having done enough. Melanchthon responds that his work (in explaining, attacking, or defending a position) has been sufficient. As a result, he is resolved not to speak on the matter again. Quoting Gregory (in Greek), he claimed that the knaves may hold and seek yet further power but he (Melanchthon), as one who 115 Melanchthon is citing one of Gregory’s moral poems, see Poemata moralia 33, Tetrastichae sententiae (MPG 37, 939; CPG §3035). 116 Letter to Christoph Leib, 29 June 1557 (MBW 8262/CR 9, 834); Letter to Paul von Eitzen, 1 February 1558 (MBW 8513/CR 9, 440); and another letter to Leib, Letter to Christoph Leib, 14 January 1559 (MBW 8831/CR 9, 729). 117 At least, ideally so. While there is no reason to doubt his sincerity and admitting that, on the whole, Melanchthon did not in fact respond with public vitriol, he was also the epicenter from which a host of satirical tracts against Flacius and the gnesio-Lutherans originated. Even if he did not pen them himself, Melanchthon was certainly aware of them and did nothing to stop them. 118 Postilla Melanchthonis, n.d., CR 25, 119.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

217

Conclusion

remains silent, will be filled with Christ.119 The second occurrence of this quotation that I have found is from Melanchthon’s oration on Gregory from that same year.120 The “knave” here is actually one of the Cercopes, a tribe of thieving and ever-duplicitous gnomes who tormented civilization and were defeated by Hercules. As punishment, they were subsequently turned into monkeys by Zeus. They are mentioned in Herodotus, Ovid, and the Suida.121 Moreover, they are discussed in Erasmus’s Adages.122 Here, Melanchthon is not only making a point of virtue but also revealing his knowledge of both Gregory’s poetry and Greek classical literature.

7.

Conclusion

This chapter has focused on the Melanchthon’s citation of the Cappadocian Fathers in conflicts with the Reformed and in intra-Lutheran debates. In this discussion, we have seen three different outcomes. First, concerning Melanchthon’s attempts to affirm an understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we saw that the Cappadocians did not provide Melanchthon with the help he sought. Though we see indications that he studied their works for insight, he came away with little more than a few inconclusive phrases (such that the elements were an anti-type of the body of Christ). Nonetheless, having found little in the patristic testimony which addressed the specific debates over the Eucharist with the Reformed, Melanchthon took comfort in the fact that nothing from the patristic tradition could be offered against his interpretation of the real presence and emphasis on the effects of Christ’s presence. Thus, he avoided any attempts to go beyond the patristic testimony. Second, we examined Melanchthon’s use of the Cappadocian Fathers in his debate over the freedom of the will and the necessity of good works with the gnesio-Lutherans. Here he met with much more success, finding many passages from both (pseudo-) Basil and Gregory Nazianzen which were useful to him to assert the necessity of prevenient grace, sustaining grace, and the necessity of 119 The context of the letter is that Melanchthon had declined an invitation from the Duke Albrecht of Prussia to write a forward to the new church order for that territory. Melanchthon approved of Jonas explaining to the Duke that he (Melanchthon) had no interest in being drawn further into the theological debate begun by Osiander over justification and Christology at the University of Königsberg; see Letter to Justus Jonas the Younger, 5 January 1558 (MBW 8486/CR 9, 425). The reference is to Gregory’s autobiographical poetry ; 17. De diversis vitae generibus et adversus falsos episcopos (MPG 37, 1269; CPG §3036). 120 CR 12, 283. The quotation is offered in Greek, with a Latin translation. 121 See Herodotus, 7, 216; Ovid, Metamorphoses 14, 80. 122 See Erasmus, The Collected Works of Erasmus: Adages IIvii1 to IIIiii100, trans. R. A. B. Mynors, ed. Alexander Dalzell (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1992), 19.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

218

Use of the Cappadocians against the Reformed and in Intra-Lutheran Conflicts

good works in the life of the renewed Christian. We also saw how subsequent Lutheran theologians accepted the general parameters set by Melanchthon for reading the patristic tradition on these questions. Finally, we saw how Melanchthon not only read the Cappadocians for doctrinal guidance but also for sage advice. Especially regarding Gregory’s comment on forgiveness, Melanchthon used the quotation to affirm both doctrinal aspects (when speaking to students) or in explaining the virtue of his actions (in letters to friends and colleagues). The fact that this last set of quotations discussed come from Gregory’s poetry, it also shows the wider range of interest Melanchthon had in the works of the Cappadocians. They were to be emulated in every way : orthodox theologians, exemplary models of using philosophy to serve theology, and masters of Greek literary form.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Appendix: The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

An et ubi fuerit vera Ecclesia, cum tantum esse dissidiorum et furorum in maxima parte generis humani. Etsi autem vera Ecclesia exigua fuit, et oppressa Constantii, Iuliani et Valentis tyrannide: tamen Deus servavit reliquias. Romae duo erant Episcopi: alter praeerat piis: alter Arianis. Erant et duo Constantinopli: Nazianzenus recte docebat, sed regium templum tenebat Demophilius Arianus. Basilius Caesarae propugnator fuit verae doctrinae, Ambrosius Mediolani, Hilarius in Galla, et quidem in Occidente minus contagiorum fuit quam in Oriente. . . . Sed firma assensione teneamus articulum: Credo esse Ecclesiam catholicam, et simul sciamus hunc esse coetum, qui fundamentum retinet, et nos in hunc coetum includamus, et testimonia divina aspiciamus, quibus suam doctrinam Deus confirmavit. . . . Consideremus autem aetates scriptorum, et fide dignos discernamus ab impuris. Aetas Theodosii habuit laudatos scriptores: Basilium, Ambrosium, Nazianzenum, Theodoretum. – Chronicon Carionis1 In Basilio extant utilia testimonia, De Trinitate, et de poenitentia, contra Novatum. In concione de humilitate tradit egregiam sententiam de iustitia fidei, quae nobis aperte patrocinatur. Sine ulla Sophistica detrahit iustificationem bonis operibus, nec loquitur de ceremonialibus, sed de omnibus virtutibus, nec tantum loquitur de operibus ante renovationem, sed de virtutibus in renovatis, ac iubet sentire, quod sola fiducia misericordiae propter Christum promissae iusti simus. Nazianzenus tractavit articulum de Trinitate, alia dogmata attingit. Scripsit vitam Cypriani, in qua narrat, quandam puellam amatam esse a Cypriano ante conversionem, quae invocans Mariam virginem, vicerit magicas incantationes Cypriani. – De Ecclesia et Autoritate Verbi Dei, 15392

1.

Introduction

This appendix is an attempt to chart the Cappadocian texts that would have been available to Melanchthon and his contemporaries. Here one may find some 1 CR 12, 1002 – 3 and 1005. 2 CR 23, 604, 616 and 617, respectively.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

220

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

resolution to the following questions: what writings of the Cappadocian Fathers were available to Melanchthon, when did these texts became available, in which language were they read, and finally, how did Melanchthon (re)appropriate the established authority of the Cappadocian Fathers to support the Evangelical Lutheran faith? The first part of this appendix introduces the secondary sources used to identify Cappadocian texts in the sixteenth century. The second part presents a sketch of the works by the Cappadocians that were owned by the Wittenberg Library and available to Melanchthon through various channels. The work of these two sections is not exactly new, as the information presented has been gleaned from existing sources. Yet, it is the first time a presentation of the sixteenth-century works of all four Cappadocians under examination has been given. Finally, this chapter will examine Melanchthon’s reflections on the theological and pedagogical contributions made by the Cappadocians in patrologies, orations, and postils composed by Melanchthon on or referring to the Cappadocians, as well as two paintings in which Melanchthon is associated with one of the Cappadocians. This appendix will describe the image of the Cappadocian Fathers that Melanchthon and his contemporaries had inherited from the tradition; that is, works about the Cappadocians. In order to do so, I will trace the references to and importance attached to the Cappadocians through the centuries in a selective review of church histories, patrologies, and hagiographic literature. Further, I attempt to also describe something of the Cappadocian theological and historical substance newly available from editions their actual works (in Latin and increasingly in Greek) to a sixteenth-century writer. This division into substance and image cannot be carried too far, as they are naturally not mutually exclusive. Doing so, however, offers two advantages. First, we may avoid getting bogged down in the complicated process of discerning the provenance of a particular Cappadocian citation in Melanchthon’s works. Second, it highlights an important aspect of the Reformation: the return ad fontes in the sixteenth century meant that much of the medieval hagiography was ignored by the Reformers. Yet, the Reformers still relied on the authority that rested on the claim to possess the pure patristic testimony.3 Therefore, before discussing the particular image of the Cappadocian Fathers that developed through the centuries, it is helpful to say something about the meaning and limitations of examining the reception of patristic authors in the sixteenth century. 3 See Markus Wriedt, “Die Autorität der Kirchenväter in der Debatte um die Bildungsreform zu Beginn der Reformation,” Auctoritas Patrum II: Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), 261 – 81.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocians: Formation of an Image

221

This examination, then, is less interested in the reception of particular Cappadocian texts than it is focused on the reception of the Cappadocians as theological and pedagogical authorities by Melanchthon. In doing so, we become better poised to address the question: “why the Cappadocians?” The answer lies, in part, in the image of the Cappadocians as “pillars of orthodoxy” that was handed down through the tradition.

2.

The Cappadocians: Formation of an Image

There was a neither lack of information on the life of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen nor an appreciation for their work in the western Church. In no small part, this is due to the efforts of Rufinus and Jerome, who incorporated the Cappadocians into their own works and translated some Cappadocian texts. The legacy of the other men included in this study of the Cappadocians — Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa — has been much less significant. Therefore, as this examination of the sources unfolds, it will be necessary to focus on Basil and Gregory Nazianzen as Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa are either not mentioned or are given brief attention. While it is not always possible to trace the availability of specific texts, we can draw a fairly complete picture of the image of the Cappadocians in the sixteenth century which had been available through the church histories and certain texts which were known to be popular through the Middle Ages. Basil was the most prominent of the Cappadocian Fathers. Throughout this discussion, we will pay particular attention to the accounts of Basil’s encounter with the emperor Valens for two reasons. First, they illustrate the growing hagiography surrounding Basil that developed. Second, Basil’s respectful opposition to the Roman Emperor influenced Melanchthon’s own conduct with the Holy Roman Emperor during the Interim of 1548.

2.1

Oration 43 of Gregory Nazianzen

The foundation of subsequent material about the Cappadocians, especially Basil, was built on Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 43, a funeral oration in honor of Basil. This oration endured as a popular text.4 It has been esteemed for its eloquence 4 Nazianzen’s Oration 43 (On Basil) is found in PG 36, 493 – 605. An English translation is found in Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazanianzen and Saint Ambrose, trans. Leo P. McCauley, Fathers of the Church, vol. 22 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953). All references to the text are taken from this edition.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

222

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

and mastery of classical form in service to Christian purposes. While praising Basil, “the pagan funeral oration is here transformed into a masterpiece of Christian eloquence in which the pagan elements do not assume undue importance, but are harmoniously subordinated to Christian use.”5 The information Gregory Nazianzen provided on Basil would be incorporated into later works. Gregory begins the eulogy by explaining his delay in the composition of the work (1 – 2); then offers an account of Basil’s ancestors (3); proof of their piety (4 – 8); his parents (9 – 10); physical description (10); praise of Basil’s learning in Cappadocia and Constantinople (11 – 14) and then continued in Athens (14 – 24); his life as a priest and the corruption he encountered (25 – 27); his struggles against them (28 – 36); his election as bishop (37 – 38); his struggles to defend the pure faith against his fellow bishops and the emperor (38 – 59); a description of his moral qualities and his works (60 – 69); a comparison to biblical figures, especially John the Baptist (70 – 77); his death and burial (78 – 80); concluding praise of Basil for his piety (81); address to Basil and solemn prayer (82). It was Gregory Nazianzen’s dramatic account in the oration of Basil’s confrontation with the Emperor Valens and his prefect that was the most repeated; it became, in fact, iconic. As with the telling of any good story, Gregory heightens the mood by sharpening his characters. The treachery of the emperor is revealed in no uncertain terms: That enemy of Christ and tyrant toward the faith, the emperor, with greater impiety and a fiercer assault, came against us again, persuaded that he had to deal with a stronger antagonist. He was like that unclean and evil spirit . . . who returns accompanied by a greater number of spirits to take up the same abode, as we have heard in the Gospels. . . . Those who professed the orthodox faith, our faith, were thrust from their churches. Others were intruded who held the pernicious doctrine of the emperor.6

Basil is singled out because of his resistance to the emperor’s Arianizing efforts.7 He was first confronted by the prefect, Modestus. He asks Basil why “he does not Gregory of Nyssa also wrote a eulogy for his departed brother, the In laudem fratris Basilii. Nyssa’s oration, however, seems to have been lost to the western tradition until the nineteenth century. Nyssa’s In laudem fratris Basilii is found in PG 46, 788 – 817 and an English translation is found in Encomium of Saint Gregory Bishop of Nyssa on His Brother Saint Basil Archbishop of Caesarea, ed. and trans. James Aloysius Stein. Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 17 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1928). 5 Martin R. P. McGuire, “Early Christian Funeral Orations,” Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazianzen and St. Ambrose, The Fathers of the Church (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953), xvii-xviii. 6 Nazianzen, Funeral Orations, 65. 7 Nazianzen, Funeral Orations, 64, 66 and 74 – 75. While many have taken Gregory at his word, some have called into question any direct connection between the splitting of Basil’s metropolitan see and his opposition to the emperor. See Raymond van Dam, “Emperor, Bishop,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocians: Formation of an Image

223

honor the religion of your sovereign when all others have given way and submitted?” Basil responds that he is loyal only to the sovereign of heaven. Since an appeal to imperial authority did not work, Modestus threatens punishments, namely, “confiscation, exile, torture, death.” Basil responds with a cunning humor, saying he has no goods to confiscate “except these tattered rags and a few books.” Exile does not scare him as he is a citizen of heaven. No torture could match the rigors of his own asceticism. Death would only hasten him to union with God. Astonished, Modestus exclaims “No one to this day has ever spoken in such a manner and with such boldness to me.” In what follows, Basil is shown to possess the respect for both the secular law and true obedience to heaven that belong to a faithful bishop.8 The story climaxes with a personal encounter between the emperor and the bishop. Valens, on his way through Asia Minor, stops in Caesarea. As it is the Feast of the Epiphany, he attends the liturgy with the full imperial retinue. Gregory claims that Valens is overcome by the “sea of people and orderly behavior, more angelic than human” and their enthusiastic singing of the psalms (apparently, he expected a fanatical mob). But it was upon seeing Basil at the altar, standing erect and beholding him with “fear and reverence by all around him,” that the Emperor began to swoon. He stood at the appointed time to bring forward the offering, but he trembled, not knowing if Basil would accept it from his hands. He would have fallen, Gregory says, had not a minister of the sanctuary taken his arm. It seems all opposition to such a holy man faded from the Emperor’s heart, since afterwards “once again he entered into communion with us in a sort of way. . . . This was the origin of the kindly feelings of the emperor towards us.”9 There is yet one more story that is central to the encounter between Basil and the emperor, since it would be repeated often, in growing dramatic detail. The son of the emperor fell ill, and Basil was summoned to pray for him. Basil, portrayed as a true shepherd of lost sheep, did not disdain the request. Immediately upon his arrival the boy improved. The emperor, however, was still an adherent of the Arian faith. The boy would have lived had his father not also “mixed salt water with the fresh” by calling Arian clergy to his bedside as well.

and Friends in Late Antique Cappadocia,” Journal of Theological Studies (1986): 53 – 76, esp. 54 – 62. 8 Nazianzen, Funeral Orations, 69. 9 Nazianzen, Funeral Orations, 70 – 71.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

224

3.

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

The Cappadocians in Early Hagiographies and Church Histories

For Melanchthon, more explicitly than any other Reformer, history was a necessary study for the Church as it was the testimony of pure doctrine.10 It is no surprise, then, that Melanchthon sought out historical sources from Christian antiquity. Throughout the medieval period, “only the Latin versions of Rufinus and Cassiodorus were read.”11 We find ample evidence that Melanchthon read the Historia tripartita of Cassiodorus.12 During the early Renaissance, substantial work had been undertaken by Beatus Rhenanus (1485 – 1547) to make the ancient Christian histories more available, “the decisive breakthrough came only in 1544 when the original Greek texts of all the relevant works were published by Robert Estienne.”13 Further, these Renaissance editions of the early Church histories had a profound effect on the tone and conception of history among scholars of the Renaissance.14 Melanchthon worked directly from the Greek texts, especially through Estienne’s edition of 1544. We find textual evidence for such use of this Greek edition in De Cretensi Mose.15 It is possible that Melanchthon made use of other histories that were popular throughout the 10 “Praecipue historia opus est in Ecclesia. . . . Praeterae non modo decus est Ecclesiae, sed testimonium etiam de Deo, de providentia, de veritate doctrinae in Ecclesia” (CR 12, 713). 11 Marin Wallraff, “Spätantike Kirchengeschichtswerke im 16. Jahrhundert,” Auctoritas Patrum II, 225. 12 For a few examples, we see that Melanchthon offers a lengthy quotation from the Historia when discussing the form of public confession made for grave sins and refers to the Rufinus’s translation of Basil’s Rule (mentioned by Rufinus in his history) in the Loci communes of 1521 (CR 21, 218; Pauck, 142 – 43 and 144, respectively). Likewise, the Loci of 1543 also cites Eusebius (CR 21, 494; Preus, 154). The Augsburg Confession cites the Historia twice, once concerning the celebration of the Mass (Article 24; citing Socrates) and the diversity of church customs allowed when essential doctrines are not in conflict (Article 27; here citing also Socrates), see BSLK 95; BC, 72 and BSLK 107; BC, 80, respectively. 13 Wallraff, “Kirchengeschichtswerke,” 230. Wallraff provides a list of sixteenth-century editions and translations of early Christian histories (ibid., 256 – 59). Included are the Historia tripartita of Beatus Rhenanus (1523 and 1535; VD 16 E4273 and E4275, respectively); Caspar Hedio’s German translation of the Historia tripartita (1530 and 1545; VD16 E4286 and E4287/E4288, respectively); Joachim Camerarius’s Latin edition of Theodoret of Cyrrhus; Robert Estienne’s Greek edition of the Historia tripartita (1544); Jean Porthaise’s Latin translation of Eusebius’s Historia (1546); and Wolfgang Musculus’s translation of the Historia tripartita (1549; VD 16 E4278; reprinted 1554 and 1557). 14 In particular, the concept of the history of the church as a history of dogma, as well as a pattern of decline, heresy, and restoration in the Church histories of late antiquity were adopted in the Renaissance, especially in the Magdeburg Centuries and Annales ecclesiastici of Caesar Baronius; see Wallraff, “Kirchengeschichtswerke,” 242 – 54. 15 According to Wallraff (“Kirchengeschichtswerke,” 237, n. 65), the Greek citations in this work (CR 12, 1021) match Socrates’s Hist. Eccl. 7,38 and the Greek citations given in CR 12, 985 f and 1016 also from Socrates’s Hist. Eccl. 2, 30, 17 – 19 and 6, 21, 4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocians in Early Hagiographies and Church Histories

225

middle ages, such as those written by Gennadius of Marseilles (late fifth century); Isidore of Seville (ca. 560 – 636); Sigebert of Gembloux (ca. 1035 – 1112); and John Trithemius (1462 – 1516).16 Since, however, these works are tangential to our study of the Cappadocians, they will not be discussed here.

3.1

Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica

Due to the date of its composition (between 303 and 312), Eusebius’ Church History does not include Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.17 Important information concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus, however, is found in books six and seven. Eusebius, who praises Origen highly, remarks that Origen drew to himself several gifted students who in turn became leaders of the Church. Among them were Gregory (who was then called Theodore) and his brother Athenodore. Eusebius records how Origen drew them away from promising secular careers and harnessed their talents for the mission of the Church.18 In Book seven, section fourteen, Eusebius again mentions that Gregory was a student of Origen. Later, in section twenty-eight of the same book, Eusebius lists Gregory as a prominent bishop in the fight against the heresy of Paul of Samosata. As we will soon see, when Rufinus translated and augmented Eusebius’s account, he will add accounts of the other Cappadocian Fathers.

3.2

St. Jerome, De viris illustribus

St. Jerome composed the first and most “basic source for the history of ancient Christian literature,” in his On Illustrious Men.19 Composed ca. 392, Jerome 16 Gennadius of Marseilles, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis (ca. 495) (PL 58); Isidore of Seville, the Etymologiae and De viris illustribus (PL 83); Sigebert of Gembloux, De scriptoribus Ecclesiastis (c. 1111) (PL 160); and John Trithemius, Liber de Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus (1494). Of these authors, only Sigebert is listed in the Wittenberg Library catalogue (Chronicon ab anno 381 ad 1113, Paris, 1513; see Kusukawa, Wittenberg Library, 77; catalogue number 455b). 17 See the PG 20, 45 – 906; books six and seven are found on 520 – 737. For a general examination of the History, see Jörg Ulrich, “Eusebius of Caesarea,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, ed. Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings, trans. Matthew O’Connell (New York: Herder and Herder, 1998), 213 – 14. For a survey of the histories discussed in this chapter, see Klaus Fitschen, “Church History,” 127 – 28. 18 Eusebius: History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. A. Williamson, ed. Andrew Louth (London: Penguin Books, 1989), 204. 19 Quasten, Patrology, vol. I, 1 – 2. The text can be found in the PL 22, 631; English translation in St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men, trans. Thomas P. Halton, Fathers of the Church (Washington,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

226

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

begins his chronicle of notable writers with St. Simon Peter and infamously concludes with himself. The work is not a hagiography because, along with great saints, non-Christian and non-orthodox theologians are also included.20 Therefore, the work is better described as a list of “ecclesiastical writers.” All four Cappadocian authors are described by Jerome. There is only a brief description of Basil in On Illustrious Men.21 For theologians as significant as Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, one is struck by the brief and relatively flat description of both their works and character. These accounts stand in contrast to Jerome’s praise of both Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory Nazianzen. Concerning Gregory Thuamaturgus, Jerome writes: Theodorus, later called Gregory, bishop of Neocaesarea, in Pontus, while still in his youth went along with his brother Athenodorus from Cappadocia to Berytus and from there to Caesarea in Palestine in order to study Greek and Latin literature. When Origen saw their outstanding ability he exhorted them to study philosophy, into which, little by little, he introduced the Christian faith, and made them believers. Having pursued their studies in this way for five years, they were sent back by him to their mother. One of them, Theodore, when departing, wrote a Panegyric in thanksgiving to Origen, which he recited before a distinguished assembly, including Origen himself, and which survives down to the present day. He also wrote an Exposition of Ecclesiastes, brief but extremely helpful, and other letters of his are widely known, but especially the signs and miracles which as a bishop he performed with great glory of the churches.22 And later, concerning Gregory Nazianzen: Gregory of Nazianzen, a bishop, a man of outstanding eloquence, was my teacher, and I learned the Scriptures at his school. He composed all his works in about thirty thousand verses and they include the following: On the Death of his D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999). See also W. A. Oldfather, ed., Studies in the Text Tradition of St. Jerome’s Vitae Patrum (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1943). For a general examination of De viris illustribus, see Alfons Fürst, “Jerome,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 319. 20 These include: Philo the Jew (11); Josephus (13); Tatian (39); Bardesanes (33); Tertullian (53), and Eunomius (120). Also, note that Origen, the Adamantius (i. e., “the man of steel”), is mentioned in chapter 54. It seems Jerome simply wished to provide a list of significant authors, though those he judged lacking in orthodoxy were certainly criticized. However, for his lack of detailed evaluation, Jerome drew this criticism from St. Augustine: “It would be more useful, I think, if when you have named those whom you know to be heretical . . . you would indicate also wherein they are not to be followed,” see Ep. 40, in St. Augustine, Letters, volume 1 (1 – 82), Fathers of the Church, vol. 12, trans. W. Parsons (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1951), 178. 21 Jerome, Illustrious Men, Chapter 128, 160 – 62. The reading of Against Eunomius must have occurred during the Council of Constantinople (381), at which Gregory of Nyssa played a prominent role. 22 Jerome, Illustrious Men, Chapter 65, 93 – 94.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocians in Early Hagiographies and Church Histories

227

Brother, Caesarius; Pe· ¦ikoppyw_a¬, On the Love of Poverty ; In Praise of the Maccabees; In Praise of Cyprian; The Praises of Athanasius; The Praises of Maximus the Philosopher upon his return from exile, to whom some gave the pseudonym Hero, because there is another satirical book by the same Maximus, as if it were not permissible to praise and criticize the same person, depending on the circumstances; and a book in hexameter verse, On Virginity and Marriage, in which the pair debate each other ; two books Against Eunomius; one book On the Holy Spirit; one book Against Julian the Emperor. He followed the oratorical style of Polemon and ordained another bishop in his own place while he was still alive. He embarked on the monastic life and died almost three years ago, in the reign of the emperor Theodosius.23 The importance Jerome assigns to Basil and Gregory of Nyssa is relatively minor (though certainly not dismissive) compared to Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory Nazianzen. This relative lack of description and praise may be attributed to one of two facts. First, Jerome might have had limited sources at his disposal. Second, it is more likely, however, that Jerome’s ardor for Origen and his prolonged personal encounter with Gregory Nazianzen are the grounds for his more extended account. Nonetheless, it is striking, as the modern emphasis is upon Basil as the “leader” of the Cappadocians, and his many theological works have historically received more attention.

3.3

Rufinus of Aquileia, Historia ecclesiastica

Around 403, Rufinus translated Eusebius’s History and added two books of his own, bringing the chronicle up to 398 (the death of Theodosius I).24 In Book 2, chapter 9, Rufinus describes Basil and Gregory together, often contrasting their talents “thus it was that a different grace was active in each of them to achieve one work of perfection.”25 Rufinus records both that Basil came from a noble family and that he studied in Athens where he excelled in rhetoric. Upon returning home he dedicated himself to the work of the Church, living a monastic life for thirteen years, before being called to “instruct the people.” He taught them “to assemble, to build monasteries, to give time to psalms, hymns, and prayers, taking care of the poor and furnish them with proper housing and necessities of life, to establish the way of life of virgins, and to make the life of modesty and charity desirable to almost everyone.” 23 Chapter 127, Jerome, Illustrious Men, 151 – 53. 24 See PL 21, 461 – 560. For a general examination of Rufinus’s translation of the History, see Matthias Skeb, “Rufinus of Aquileia,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 516. 25 The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia, Books 10 and 11, trans. Philip Amidon (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 72.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

228

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

As for his character, Basil was “pure in faith,” “humble in God’s sight,” and he “conquered the arrogant by disdain.” The latter skill was necessary in his encounter with Modestus, the Emperor Valens’ prefect. Rufinus conflates several meetings within a prolonged battle between the Arian Christians (who enjoyed imperial favor) and those still faithful to the Nicene Creed. When threatened with death, Basil is unmoved; when given a day to reconsider his response, Basil asserts “I will be tomorrow who I am now, and you will certainly be no different.” It was a battle of wills broken only by the illness of Valens’ son, which was interpreted as divine punishment for his persecution of the Catholic faith. Finally, Rufinus states that he has translated Basil’s monastic Rule (the shorter Asceticon) and eight sermons.

3.4

Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica

Socrates began his ecclesiastical history in 305 (where Eusebius’s ends) and brought his ecclesiastical history up to 439.26 This history mentions all four Cappadocians, but like Rufinus, the focus is upon the efforts of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. Socrates first mentions Basil and Gregory in chapter 23, concerning those who devoted themselves to the monastic life.27 A full introduction to both

26 For a general examination of Socrates’s History, see Jörg Ulrich, “Socrates,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 540 – 41. Ulrich claims that in addition to Eusebius and Rufinus (from whom he sometimes transcribes verbatim), Socrates’s sources were Gelasius of Caesarea, texts of Athanasius, the collection of synodical acts by Sabinus of Caesarea, the Breviarium of Eutropius, the Chronicle of Constantinople, and oral accounts, as well as personal observations. Quotations in this section are from Socrates, Sozomen: Church Histories, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 2 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995, reprint). To my knowledge, no critical edition or more modern English translation of this work exists. Scholarly work on the text exists, however, in French and German. For a Greek text with French translation, see Socrates Scholasticus: Histoire eccl¦siastique, ed. Günther Christian Hansen, Pierre P¦richon and Pierre Maraval (Paris: Cerf, 2004). For a Greek text with a German introduction, see Socrates Scholasticus: Kirchengeschichte, ed. Günther Christian Hansen and Manja Sirinja (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995). 27 Basil’s monastic retreat in Pontus is recorded, as well as his comment that only those who receive the particular grace for the monastic life should take it (Socrates, History, 108). Gregory Nazianzen is mentioned tangentially as the one who ordained Evagrius to the deaconate in Constantinople. The Lausiac History, however, records that it was Gregory of Nyssa who in fact ordained Evagrius (chapter 86). Before chapter 23, Socrates has mentioned in chapter 3 Gregory Nazianzen’s oration against the Emperor Julian (whom Nazianzen knew while both were students in Athens, see Oration 5; Socrates, History, 92). Chapter 11 recounts the hail of extraordinary size and the earthquakes that God inflicted on the region as a punishment for its embrace of Arianism, for the “convulsions of the earth were regarded as typical of the disturbances which agitated the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocians in Early Hagiographies and Church Histories

229

men occurs in chapter 26, in which Socrates highlights the most important aspects of their lives and works. He mentions that both men so excelled in virtue and eloquence that one would be hard pressed to choose one over the other. He notes that they studied in Athens, mastering the art of rhetoric from the preeminent practitioners of the art. Rejecting a successful public career, Basil and Gregory retired to a monastic retreat, during which they commented on Origen’s works, which, the author notes, were being misused by the Arians. Returning to active life, Basil became a deacon (and later a bishop) during which time he was tireless in his instruction of the people against the raging of the Arians. Likewise, Gregory Nazianzen took over the pastoral work of his father’s diocese, visiting Constantinople often, bringing comfort to the oppressed orthodox community there. Towards the end of the chapter, Socrates mentions Gregory of Nyssa as the brother of Basil, who “emulated [Basil’s] eloquence in teaching, and completed after his death Basil’s treatise on the [Hexaemeron], which had been left unfinished . . . and many of [Nyssa’s] orations are still extent.”28 Socrates highlights Basil’s arrest and presence before the emperor’s prefect (whom he does not name). When the prefect’s threats did not move Basil into submission, he remained under arrest. Soon after, Socrates records that the emperor’s son, Galates, fell ill and his mother, Dominica, reported to her husband that she has received visions that the boy’s illness was caused by his persecution of Basil. The emperor summoned Basil before him, charging, “If the doctrine you believe is the truth, pray that my son may not die.”29 Basil promised the boy’s immediate recovery if only the emperor would abandon the Arian faith. When Valens refused, the boy died. In the immediately following section, chapter 27, discusses Gregory Thaumaturgus. Socrates is careful to distinguish among the three Gregories, since confusion among the three has arisen “from the likeness of the name and the title of the books attributed to Gregory.”30 Socrates notes that Gregory Thaumaturgus is a native of Neocaesarea who was a gifted student in Athens and Beirut before becoming a pupil of Origen, “from whom he became inseparable.” He concluded by remarking that Gregory performed many miracles and converted many through his preaching. He also notes that Gregory delivered a panegyric for Origen before leaving Caesarea, which is recorded in the defense of Origen composed by Pamphilus Martyr.

churches, for many of the clerical body was sent into exile,” except Basil and Gregory Nazianzen “by a special dispensation of Divine Providence” (ibid., 100). 28 This quotation, and the previous references in this paragraph, comes from Socrates, History, 110 – 11. 29 Socrates, History, 111. 30 Socrates, History, 111 – 12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

230 3.5

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica

Sozomen composed his ecclesiastical history sometime soon after 439. His history, in nine books, covers the period from 324 to 422. Gregory Thaumaturgus is not mentioned and Gregory of Nyssa is only mentioned once.31 Like Socrates (upon whom he is dependent), Sozomen often discusses Basil and Nazianzen as a pair. The two are first mentioned in chapter 18 which comments on Julian’s edit to exclude Christians from teaching in the schools. By doing so, Julian sought to deprive Christians of the rudimentary tools of grammar and rhetoric and attacked Christian leaders who most defended the union of letters and theology : Apollinaris of Laodicea, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen. The rest of the chapter is devoted to the literary efforts of Apollinaris (both father and son) to compose Christian literature into Homeric style. Sozomen concludes the chapter with Julian’s affirmation “I have read, I have understood, and I have condemned” the Christian scriptures. “To this,” Sozomen continues: they sent the following reply : ‘You have read, but you have not understood; for had you understood, you would not have condemned.’ Some have attributed this reply to Basil, bishop of Cappadocia, and perhaps, not without reason; but, whether dictated by him or by another, it fully displays the magnanimity and learning of the writer.32

In chapter 17, Sozomen repeats in his account the friendship between Basil and Nazianzen, their education in Athens and Antioch, their adoption of the monastic life and study of Origen, and from the works of Origen they were able to defeat the Arians. He adds a curious tidbit: that Basil and Gregory decided in which region they would preach by lot. Chapters 4, 5, and 7 offer a brief account of Gregory Nazianzen’s efforts to encourage the Nicene community at Constantinople, his election as bishop of that city, the subsequent leadership of the council there, and his abdication. He notes that Gregory presided over those who maintained the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, who assembled together “in a little dwelling.” Sozomen’s account adds that the fact that this little flock flourished under Gregory was due to Mary, the Mother of God, “for she does manifest herself in this way.”33

31 The only account of Gregory of Nyssa appears to be in chapter 9, in which Sozomen lists the bishops named by Theodosius after the Council of Constantinople with whom one must be in communion, in Socrates, Sozomen: Church Histories, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 2 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995; reprint), 381 – 82. For a general examination of Sozomen’s account, see Jörg Ulrich, “Sozomen,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 543 – 44. 32 Sozomen, History, 340. 33 Sozomen, History, 379.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocians in Early Hagiographies and Church Histories

231

With the imperial throne now occupied by Theodosius, the orthodox theologians sought to remove the Arians from the capital. Gregory, having long labored as the most prominent orthodox voice and leader of the catholic congregation there, was poised to become the patriarch of the city. Convening about 150 bishops to the city, Theodosius, out of “profound admiration [for] the sanctity and eloquence of Gregory, judged that he was worthy of this bishopric [i.e., Constantinople], and that, from reverence [for] his virtue, the greater number of Synod was of the same opinion.” Sozomen offers a flat account of those who opposed Gregory and his forced abdication. He emphasizes that Gregory’s resignation from the episcopal throne was a matter of his choice and reflected his humility.34 In chapters 15 and 16, Sozomen also provides much information on the conflict between Emperor Valens and the orthodox, the leadership of which seems to have been given over to Basil due to his prominent role in the story. Sozomen begins by informing the reader that Valens planned to exploit the strained relationship between Basil (in self-imposed exile at Pontus) and bishop Eusebius. As soon as word got to Basil that the emperor planned to visit Cappadocia, he hastened back to Caesarea and effected a reconciliation with Eusebius, such that when the emperor arrived, his original plan was for naught.35 Chapter 16 records that after Eusebius’s death, the emperor Valens returned again to Cappadocia and discovered that Basil had become bishop. Sozomen says that Valens planned to expel Basil but “that night, after he formed his plans” his son Galates became deathly ill. Undeterred, Valens called Basil to appear before the prefect, during which he threatened Basil with execution if he did not embrace the Arian faith. Basil was unmoved, replying that death would only 34 Sozomen adds “afterwards, ascertaining that some of the bishops, particularly those of Egypt, objected to the election, [Gregory] withdrew his consent. . . . His eloquence did not inspire him with pride, nor did vainglory lead him to desire the control of a church. . . . He surrendered his appointment to the bishops when it was required of him, and never complained of his many labors, or of the dangers he had incurred in the suppression of heresies” (ibid., 380). See also John McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir, 2001). Gregory, dissatisfied with the quality of theological discussion and the conduct of the other bishops, had long removed himself from the council, pleading illness. When the Alexandrians and the Illyrians arrived late at the council, they demanded that all of the prior proceedings be rehashed. Moreover, Peter, the Archbishop of Alexandria, objected to Gregory’s election as archbishop of Constantinople, since the decision had been made in his absence and without his input. Having removed himself from the council and his authority now being questioned, Gregory found himself with almost no significant supports; even the emperor seemed to have lost confidence in him. McGuckin concludes “Gregory puts the best face on it he [could], insisting that he resigned and was not dismissed, but it was unarguably a forced resignation” (ibid., 359; for a fuller account of the whole proceedings, see ibid., 350, 355, and 358 – 66). 35 Sozomen, History, 355.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

232

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

hasten him to God. Further, no torture the emperor could administer would match Basil’s own asceticism, and exile would not be a punishment “as I possess nothing but a cloak and a few books. I dwell on earth as a traveler.” Basil’s courage impressed the emperor and the prefect; nonetheless, the emperor had decided to banish Basil. Yet, Valens was also now desperate to see his son restored to health, and he sent his representatives to Basil, urging him to pray for the boy’s recovery. Sozomen says that as soon as Basil arrived, the boy showed marked improvement. The boy quickly falls ill again, however, as “some heretics” (i. e., Arian priests) joined Basil in prayer. “The death of this prince,” Sozomen writes: was universally attributed to the wrath of God on account of the machinations that had been carried on against Basil. Valens himself was of this opinion, and after the death of his son, offered no further molestation to the bishop. . . . The instances above adduced are quite inadequate to convey an idea of the wonderful endowments of Basil: his austerity of life and astonishing powers of eloquence attracted great celebrity.36 To contrast with the example of the emperor’s son, Sozomen adds that the prefect also fell ill, but was restored to health upon repenting of his Arian faith. Finally, Sozomen repeats Gregory Nazianzen’s account that the emperor visited the service led by Basil during the Feast of the Epiphany, but it was not the great conversion moment for the emperor that Gregory made it out to be. Instead, he reports “the emperor . . . presented gifts at the holy table, and held a conference with Basil, whose wisdom and whose order and arrangements in the conduct of the priesthood and the church elicited his praise.”37 This account is more fitting of the understanding of recent scholarship, which sees in Basil and Valens two men in conflict, but who were also quite practical in recognizing their mutual need of the other.

3.6

Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Cassiodorus

Theodoret composed his own church history, which appeared posthumously ca. 449. He does not mention Gregory Thaumaturgus and refers to Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa only in passing.38 There is one account of Basil, 36 Sozomen, History, 356. 37 Sozomen, History, 356. 38 Chapter 27 states “Among the bishops were the two Gregorii, the one of Nazianzenus and the other of Nyssa, the latter the brother and the former the friend and fellow worker of the great Basilius. These were foremost champions of piety in Cappadocia,” see Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings 3 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995; reprint), 129. For a general overview of Theodoret’s history, see Peter Bruns, “Theodoret of Cyrrhus,”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocians in Early Hagiographies and Church Histories

233

which focuses on the encounters between the bishop and emperor Valens. In Theodoret’s account, the prefect does not threaten exile or execution, but “treated him with respect and addressing him with moderate and courteous language, [urging] him to yield to the exigencies of the time and not to forsake so many in the church on account of a petty nicety of doctrine.” Basil sees the prefect’s moderation as the result of one who does not understand what is at stake. At this point, “intimidation was . . . joined with argument,” but Basil refused to budge. As in Sozomen, the illness of the emperor’s son is directly linked to his oppression of Basil, and Theodoret even inserts an allusion to the plagues of Egypt. Again, Basil assured the emperor that the boy would be restored to health if baptized “at the hands of the pious”; but the sacrament was carried out by Arian clergy and the boy immediately died.39 Theodoret’s account on Basil is noteworthy for two more reasons. First, when he tells the reader of Valens’s visit to the Epiphany services, Theodoret says that the emperor and the bishop had been reconciled. The emperor “offered the customary gifts at the altar” and then Basil “ordered him to come within the divine curtains where he sat and talked much with him about divine decrees.” Theodoret adds that Basil fell out of the emperor’s favor a second time, and the emperor resolved to exile him. However, when the document was brought to the emperor for him to sign, his pen broke. This happened a second and then a third time. This event filled the emperor with fear and he resolved to leave Basil in peace. So far, we have seen how the histories discussed here were dependent upon one another to varying degrees, and how all of them intended to pick up where Eusebius left off. After 540, Cassiodorus and his assistant Ephiphanius edited a compilation of these Greek histories in a single Latin translation, called the Historia tripartita.40 The corresponding accounts of each of the previous histories are recorded next to each other. The more detailed accounts are offered first, and any supplemental accounts are interspersed throughout the narrative.41 This collection of translated Greek histories would become the standard source of church history throughout the Middle Ages. In fact, many of the individual Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 567 – 68. A critical edition is available in Greek and French, see Histoire eccl¦siastique, Sources chr¦tiennes 501, ed. L¦on Parmentier, Günther Christian Hansen and Jean Bouffartigue (Paris: Cerf, 2006). 39 Theodoret, History, 119 – 120. 40 Cassiodorus-Epiphanius, Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita: Historia Ecclesiastica ex Socrate Sozomeno et Theodorito in unum collectae et nuper de Graeco in Latinum translatae libri numero duodecim, ed. Walter Jacob, CSEL 71 (Vindobonae: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1952), 1. 41 For instance, the account of the Council of Nicaea in book 2 unfolds in the following manner : an account by Sozomen, then Theodoret, then Socrates “from Eusebius,” then back to Sozomen, then Socrates, Sozomen, then Theodoret, then Socrates, then the text of the Creed is provided (Historia, 82 – 97).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

234

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

histories that make up Cassiodorus’s Historia would not be rediscovered in the West as independent sources in their original languages until the 1520s, as a result of the work of Beatus Rhenanus.

3.7

Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend

The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine, a historian and archbishop of Genoa, mentions Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa, but includes a biography only of Basil. Here, Basil is indeed portrayed as a most holy man: “Basil was a venerable bishop and an eminent doctor of the Church. His life was written by Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium.”42 The only historical, doctrinal aspect of Basil’s life recorded in the Legend is his confrontation with Valens. The account of their meeting is embellished to give greater glory to Basil. Rather than being summoned or arrested, Basil embarks to confront the Emperor concerning his persecution of orthodox Christians. This is apparently not the first time Basil has confronted the Emperor, since he sneers “So here you are, Basil . . . shaming me again!”43 According to the Legend, divine intervention again confirmed Basil’s faith over against the Arian cause. Yet this time, it is not through the illness of the emperor’s son that the weakness of Arianism was demonstrated. Rather, in a contest of prayer reminiscent of Elijah and the priests of Baal, a challenge was offered (1 Kings 18:20 – 40). The doors of a church were closed and sealed. For three days, the Arians gathered to implore heaven that God would open the doors for them and justify their cause. Heaven was silent. Then, Basil — leading a procession of prayerful Catholics — arrived. Upon reaching the portico, he recited Psalm 24:9 (“Lift up your heads, O ancient doors, that the king of glory may come in!”) and tapped the doors with his crozier. Immediately, the doors of the church flew open for its rightful steward. The other information concerning Basil focuses on his miraculous powers, such as the ability to read the thoughts of men; he defeated Satan himself in a contest over an apostatizing youth, on his deathbed he converted his Jewish doctor by surviving longer than expected (even arising from his deathbed to baptize the man himself), and even in death won pardon for a woman’s most grave sin. The Golden Legend was one of the most copied books throughout the medieval period. It is most unlikely for Melanchthon not to have known of its content. However, we see no proof that he made use of it for the instruction of the 42 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, vol 1, trans. William Granger Ryan (Princeton: Princeton University, 1993), 108. 43 Voragine, Golden Legend, 109.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

235

Feast Day

youth, since its emphasis on saintly miracles was contrary to both his Humanist and Reformation principles. We know that the lives of saints continued to be celebrated and used as didactic tools under Melanchthon’s educational reforms, but in a way that made the Golden Legend moot.

4.

Feast Day

Establishing a feast day for a particular saint is difficult, since, aside from the major feasts of the Church, the particular saints celebrated and when they were celebrated was left to local tradition. A general idea of when a particular saint was commemorated in the Church can be gleaned from the multi-volume Acta sanctorum and the Zeitrechnung des Deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit.44 Much of the Church has, and continues, to celebrate the feast of St. Basil on January 2. In fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries, however, the previously mentioned sources provide different dates. According to Grotefend, the Augustinian Hermits celebrated Basil’s feast day on January 1; a date later solidified by the Council of Trent. However, during this time, Basil’s feast day was celebrated on June 14 in the dioceses of Mainz and Meissen. Somewhat complicating the effort to discern a uniform feast day is that fact that in Electoral Saxony it seems St. Basil was commemorated on February 3. This is discerned from evidence in one of Melanchthon’s letters and his oration on St. Basil. It seems likely that there was a conflation between St. Basil and St. Blaise. Grotefend lists the feast day for Gregory Nazianzen on May 9 in the diocese of Hamburg. The Canons Regular of the Holy Cross (Kreuzherren) commemorated Gregory Thaumaturgus on November 17. No listing in either source is given for Gregory of Nyssa. The information given in this section is, by no means, an exhaustive study of the range and scope of material from the early Church that survived through the medieval period to provide an image of the Cappadocian legacy for a sixteenthcentury scholar such as Melanchthon. It is, however, a general survey of the major texts that either endured or were rediscovered by western readers. By setting the histories and other sources side by side, we have been able to see how the image of the Cappadocian Fathers was passed on through the centuries and even how the stories around them grew into legends. The stature of these pillars of orthodoxy grew with the passing of time. They were powerful and learned 44 See Johannes Bolland, Acta sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur : vel a catholicis scriptoribus celebrantur, ed. Jean Baptiste Carnandet (Paris: Victorem Palme, 1863). This information is also available with a searchable database online at . See also Hermann Grotefend, Zeitrechnung des Deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, 2 vols. (Hannover : Hahn, 1891 – 98; reprint, Aalen: 1970). This information is also searchable at .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

236

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

bishops, who feared neither the ravings of heretics or emperors. They were men who has mastered classical learning and eloquence and who employed their skills in service to the Gospel. Melanchthon not only appealed to the Cappadocian Fathers as models of praxis but also sought out their works, translated and lectured on their texts, urging students to copy not only their eloquence and piety but also to follow the content of their treatises to the letter. With this in mind, we will now turn to tracing something of the substance of the Cappadocians, i. e., their actual works (or works attributed to them) that grounded their reputation.

5.

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

One way to approach the question of a “Cappadocian canon” is to account for the works by or attributed to each Cappadocian Father. One may then indicate several things. First, scholars can note which texts were read and compare the attributions of the sixteenth century to our own modern analysis, for the Cappadocian canon of the sixteenth century does not exactly match our own. For instance, some doubted the authenticity of Basil’s On the Holy Spirit, while other works attributed to Basil in the sixteenth century we now know are spuria. In a similar vein, we will see that despite the importance ascribed to St. Gregory of Nyssa, both in his time and since the early twentieth century, his works were largely unknown in the sixteenth century. The one work for which he was most praised in the sixteenth century was actually composed by Nemesius of Emesa. Gregory Thaumaturgus faired only a little better. The Creed attributed to him was known, and Melanchthon referred to it often, but beyond that little was available to the interested scholar. Both Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa, then, remain elusive figures, whose image as great theologians was well known but whose substantial theological works were missing. Second, one can also gain information from when and in what manner such sources were available. We may ask whether a Cappadocian text is known to a sixteenth century author in manuscript or printed form? This tells us something of the text’s provenance. We may ask in what language was the text available, Greek, Latin or perhaps even German? The marked increase in available printed editions lets us know that interest in Cappadocian material kept pace with both the developments in printing and the theological controversies. That is, as presses were able to handle Greek fonts, Greek versions of Cappadocian material became available in greater numbers to interested scholars. Finally, we can examine which texts were being printed and how often they were printed as an

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

237

indication of interest within the market. Such work has already begun and has born much fruit. It is and will — by necessity — remain incomplete, as many works have been lost to history and, given various circumstances, scholars cannot always state conclusively which text and which edition a sixteenth-century reader might have used. Using the various scholarly sources available, one is able to sketch a general picture of the reception of particular Cappadocian works, or works attributed to the Cappadocians.45 That is the purpose of this chapter. However, we should hasten to emphasize that the material presented below provides only a vista onto the landscape of Cappadocian material available to Melanchthon and his colleagues. I offer three caveats to our discussion. First, the Cappadocian sources discussed in this chapter are almost exclusively printed resources. The manuscript tradition, given its complexity and largely medieval focus, is necessarily left to the side. Second, given the confines of our discussion, I have also limited my search to particular parameters related to Philip Melanchthon. For example, I have searched for Cappadocian texts that were printed by or before his death in 1560. Finally, in no way do I claim that this search for Cappadocian sources is either exhaustive nor that any sources listed here necessarily imply that Melanchthon actually used these sources. In several circumstances, we are able to directly attribute a Cappadocian quotation to a particular edition. However, this number is far smaller than the many sources that were available and to which Melanchthon most likely had access. We do not know the content of Melanchthon’s personal library. The Wittenberg University library catalogue from 1536 is fairly early for our purposes (that is, it predates the publication of many

45 These include but are not limited to the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Herausgegeben von der Bayerischen Staatbibliothek in München in Verbindung mit der Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1983 – 2000); I have also augmented my findings in the printed editions of the VD16 with the online version, available through the Bibliotheksverbund Bayern (www.bib-bvb.de); the online catalogues of the Herzog August Bibliothek (www.hab.de/bibliothek/kataloge), the BibliothÀque de France (catalogue.bnf.fr), and the British Library (www.bl.uk); the Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, Annotated Lists and Guides, ed. Paul Oskar Kristeller (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1960-present); Paul Jonathan Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana universalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea (Turnhout: Brepols, 1993-present); Gregorii Nyseni Opera, 10 vols., ed. Werner W. Jaeger (Leiden: Brill, 1952-present); St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works, trans. Michael Slusser (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1998); Sachiko Kusukawa, A Wittenberg Library Catalogue of 1536 (Cambridge: LP Publications, 1995); Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe, ed. Heinz Scheible (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977-present); and indications discovered throughout the scholarly literature.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

238

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

Cappadocian sources). And, of course, sixteenth-century authors very rarely cited their sources in a manner convenient for twenty-first century scholars. These caveats aside, however, our examination here is warranted by several factors. First, despite the limitations imposed on our search, one comes to appreciate just how many Cappadocian sources were available (in both Latin and Greek) to an interested scholar in the sixteenth century. Second, though we can directly correlate only a few of Melanchthon’s Cappadocian quotations to particular editions that were actually in his hands, the breadth of material available justifies some speculation on our part. This is especially encouraged when one notes three factors: Melanchthon’s demonstrated interest in (and proficiency for) Greek patristic sources, the availability of books (even those printed in France and Italy) at the German book fairs in Frankfurt and Leipzig, and the fact that many of these Greek patristic editions were edited and translated by many of Melanchthon’s friends, colleagues, former pupils, and opponents (such as Peter Mosellanus, Johannes Oecolampadius, Desiderius Erasmus, and Georg Witzel), with whom he remained in contact. Thus, it is reasonable to at least posit that Melanchthon would have sought out such material or was sent these editions by the editors as gifts. In the following chapters of this dissertation, we will present “Melanchthon at work” as a theologian and philologist using the Cappadocians. Whenever possible, we will identify the particular edition Melanchthon used. This chapter is meant to place those references to and quotations of the Cappadocians in the context of a sixteenth-century Cappadocian canon, ca. 1450 to 1560.

5.1

Modern Studies in the Textual Reception of Cappadocian Material

Five works are particularly important for the task of tracing the reception of Cappadocian texts in the sixteenth century : the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts; the Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, Annotated Lists and Guides; Michael Slusser’s St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works; the Bibliotheca Basiliana universalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea; and, particularly for our purposes, A Wittenberg Library Catalogue of 1536. The Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts (henceforth, abbreviated VD16), is a multi-volume work begun by the Bavarian State Library in Munich in conjunction with the Duke August Library in Wolfenbüttel. The volumes offer information on works printed from 1501 to 1600 within the “integral German cultural area” (i. e., “in Germany without firmly defined political boundaries,” including Austria, and the German

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

239

speaking regions of Switzerland and Alsace). Excluded from these volumes then are works in manuscript form (as well as broadsides, musica practica, maps, and atlases) or work printed outside of this German-speaking region (e. g., work published by the Aldine Press of Venice are excluded). When known, several important pieces of information are provided in the VD16, such as: a transcription of the work’s title page, in what language(s) the work was written, the editor and translator of the work, its imprint information (such as publisher, as well as place and date of publication), as well as where the work can currently be found. The Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum is a work in progress and covers a limited range of authors. Under each author, one finds a brief biography and literary analysis of their works. The reception and translation of each of the works by the author (or works historically attributed to that author) is richly presented. The editor of each volume provides information for both the individual text and, where appropriate, instances of where the text was published in a collection (either as a opera omnia or combined with other authors) up to the present. Moreover, one finds information on the translators themselves, as well as valuable information on the translations, such as quality of the translation, lacunae in the translated text, and of course, place and date of publication. When available, the title page and dedicatory prefaces are transcribed and incipit and excipit lines are given. Finally, one also finds a listing of any modern critical editions of the text that may exist as well as literature pertinent to the text. The project is massive in scope. As a result, the Catalogus does not claim that the material concerning each individual author is exhaustive. However, the presented information is impressive and, therefore, the Catalogus is an invaluable tool for learning more about the reception of a particular author as well as a discussion of both the manuscript and printed format of texts (information not easily gleaned from the VD16 or other sources). I will make use of the Catalogus for Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa, the two Cappadocian Fathers who have so far been analyzed by the Catalogus. The Catalogus, however, does not provide cross-reference to the VD16. When possible, I have supplied that information in the notation. For authors such as Gregory Thaumaturgus and Basil, I am dependent upon more thorough studies of their works; namely Michael Slusser’s St. Gregory of Thaumaturgus: Life and Works and Paul Fedwick’s Bibliotheca Basiliana universalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea. Again, the following is a brief analysis of the conclusions that can be drawn from these sources of what was available to a scholar of the sixteenth century who was interested in Cappadocian sources. For current scholars interested in learning more about the Cappadocian canon in the sixteenth century, my work offers a brief analysis of the conclusions reached by

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

240

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

the secondary sources which are, where possible, cross referenced to one another.

5.2

Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa

Few printed works were available by Gregory Taumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa during the sixteenth century. The VD16 lists three works by Gregory Thaumaturgus: the Metaphrase on Ecclesiastes and the Canonical Letter.46 The first (G3097), is a Latin translation of the Metaphrase by Johannes Oecolampadius, printed in 1520.47 The second (G3098), is a 1520 reprint of the Metaphrase translation by Oecolampadius with the addition of the life of Gregory as recorded in the Suida, translated by Peter Mosellanus, published in Leipzig.48 In the third (G3099), dated 1519, the Canonical Letter of Gregory (also translated by Oecolampadius) is printed along with works by Peter of Alexandria, Gennadius of Constantinople, and Nicephorus of Constantinople.49 In addition to what is 46 Numbers G3097-G3099, in volume 8, VD16, 132. A modern translation of the Metaphrase on Ecclesiastes is available in Slusser, Gregory Thaumaturgus, 127 – 146 (PG 10, 988 – 1017; CPG §1766). 47 G 3097: In Ecclesiasten Solomonis Metaphrasis Diui Gregorii (Augsburg: S. Grimm & M. Wirsung, 1520). 48 G 3098: Metaphrasis (Leipzig: Valentin Schumann, 1520). The Metaphrase on Ecclesiastes was also published with a Commentary on Ecclesiastes by Olympiodorus (Basel: J. Bebelium, 1536); see VD 16 O 727. Other subsequent printings include In ecclesiasten commenariolus (which also included the Canonical Letter) (Basel: Heinrich Petri, 1550) and again (Basel: J. Heroldt, 1555). According to the BVB, these latter printings included the Greek as well as the Latin. Oecolampadius was perhaps the first to attribute correctly the Metaphrase to Gregory Thaumaturgus. Previously, it had been attributed to Gregory Nazianzen. Both Oecolampadius and Mosellanus were Humanist colleagues of Melanchthon and he corresponded often with both. There can be no doubt that Melanchthon was familiar with their editions of patristic sources. The Suida was a tenth-century Byzantine encyclopedic lexicon which provided a wealth of references to ancient sources, some of them now lost. The author of the Suida is unknown. “Suida” means “fortress” and was intended as an authoritative collection of historical information on secular and ecclesiastical writers and events. At some point, Suida was taken to refer to the author, and thus one finds reference to “Suidas” as the author. A 1514 Aldine Greek edition of the Suida is listed in the holdings of the Wittenberg Library Catalogue of 1536, see Wittenberg Catalogue, 16. 49 The title page reads: “DE POENI j j tentia PETRI archiepiscopi. Ale- j j xandrini & matryris Canones. j j GREGORII Neocaesariensis epi- j j scopi, Canones. j j DE SIMONIA j j GENNADII patriarchae Con- j j stantinopolitani Encyclia epostola j j DE LIGANDI j j ET SOLVENDI POTESTATE, j j NICEPHORI Chartophylacis j j Constantinopolitani. archiepi. epistola.” The Canonical Letter is addressed to an unknown bishop concerning how to deal with a specific case involving Christians who, in 258, had been forced against their will by their pagan captors to violate the Christian faith; see Slusser, Gregory Thaumaturgus,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

241

listed in the VD16, the Libellus de Anima was published in Venice (1553) along with some works by the other Cappadocian Fathers.50 According to Michael Slusser, no collection of Gregory’s writings was made in antiquity, which has hindered the recovery and study of his texts, even up to today.51 The first attempt to create a complete edition of Gregory Thaumaturgus’s known works was not until 1604.52 No works by Gregory Thaumaturgus are listed in the Wittenberg Catalogue of 1536, nor is he, as yet, the subject of study by the Catalogus Translationum. From what can be discerned from Melanchthon’s works, his knowledge of Gregory Thaumaturgus comes exclusively from citations in other sources; namely, the Creed of Gregory as it is cited in his copy of Eusebius.53 However, as I mentioned earlier, the relative availability of Gregory’s works by 1518 as well as the fact that Melanchthon’s old school friend Oecolampadius was the translator, it is a reasonable conjecture that Melanchthon would have know of Gregory’s work beyond just the Creed.

50

51 52

53

147 – 51; PG 10, 1020 – 1048; CPG §1765. The other authors included are St. Peter of Alexandria (r. 300 – 311), St. Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (r. 458 – 471), and St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (r. 806 – 815), who opposed iconoclasm at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). Libellus de Anima, translated by Pietro Francesco Zini (Venice, 1553). Also included were Gregory of Nyssa’s Apologia in Hexaemeron (a commentary on Basil’s Hexaemeron) and some orations by Gregory Nazianzen. The Libellus is a commentary on the soul, addressed to Tatian. The authorship of the work is still in question, having also been attributed to Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor (among others); see Slusser, Gregory Thaumaturgus, 33 – 34, 181 – 86; PG 10, 1137 – 1146 and PG 91, 353 – 62; CPG §1773. Slusser, Gregory Thaumaturgus, 6. The work was edited by Gerard de Vos, who was provost of Tongeren, a market town north of LiÀge, France. The work is entitled Sanci Gregorii Episcopi Neocaesariensis, cognomento Thaumaturgi, Opera Omnia, and was printed in Mainz. The work contained the “Creed” of Thaumaturgus (CPG §3184), the “Twelve Chapters on Faith” (CPG §1772), four homilies (CPG §1775, §1776, and §4519), the “Canonical Epistle” (CPG §1765), “To Tatian on the Soul” (CPG §1773), the “Metaphrase on Ecclesiastes” (PG 10, 987 – 1018; CPG §1766), the “Address of Thanksgiving to Origen” (CPG §1763), and the “Life” of Gregory Thaumaturgus, composed by Gregory of Nyssa (CPG §3184). See Slusser, Gregory Thaumaturgus, 6 – 7. This is one of the few times when Melanchthon tells us his source for a quotation. I think the reason for doing so here is to show emphatically that Gregory Thaumaturgus’s testimony is both ancient and well known throughout the tradition; De Ecclesia et de Autoritate Verbi Dei, 1539 (CR 23, 596; MSA 1, 327). The source from which Rufinus inserted the Creed into his augmentation of Eusebius has been a matter of some discussion. One of the earliest commentators (in 1766) on the Symbolum fidei set the tradition by asserting that Rufinus used Gregory of Nyssa’s Greek text (found in the PG 46, 912; CPG §3184). More recently, another scholar has offered a detailed account of the possible alternative sources; see Luise Abramowski, “Das Bekenntnis des Gregor Thaumaturgos bei Gregor von Nyssa und das Problem seiner Echtheit,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 87 (1976): 145 – 66. For a detailed account of the literature surrounding this issue, see Helen Brown Wicher, “Gregorius Nyssenus,” Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, vol. 5, ed. F. Edward Cranz (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1984), 237.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

242

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

There were several works available in the sixteenth century by Gregory of Nyssa, but again no clear dependence upon him by Melanchthon can be discerned, except in one case. The VD16 lists twenty-two occurrences for a printed work by Gregory of Nyssa.54 Of these twenty-two, eight printings (of five works) were available during Melanchthon’s lifetime.55 Three editions were available relatively early. The first is dated 1512, and included eight philosophical orations as well as the Distinction between Essence and Hypostasis and Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration in Praise of Gregory of Nyssa.56 The second (G3120) and third (G3121) were Latin translations of the Life of Moses, dated December 1517 and May 1521, respectively.57 Both are German printings of the Latin translations by 54 Numbers G3101 – 3123 in volume 8, VD16, 132 – 38. The eight printings discussed here are: E 4276; E 4279; G 3110; G 3113; G 3120; G 3121; G 3064; and ZV 7008. For a more detailed account of the reception of the texts by Gregory of Nyssa, see Wicher, Catalogus, 15 – 33 and especially the more recent Bibliographie zu Gregor von Nyssa: Editionen, Übersetzungen, Literatur, ed. Margarete Altenburg and Friedhelm Mann (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 9 – 23. Also helpful is Franz Dünzl, “Gregory of Nyssa,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, ed. Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings, trans. Matthew O’Connell (New York: Crossroads, 2000), 263 – 68. Among the more noteworthy important scholars and theologians particularly concerned with the translation and editing of Gregory of Nyssa’s work were: Dionysius Exiguus (c. 475-c. 550), Maximus the Confessor (580 – 662), John of Damascus (c. 699 – 753), John Scottus Eriugena (c. 815 – 877) Cardinal Bessarion (1395 – 1472), and George Trebizond (1395 – 1484). 55 These works include the Life of Moses (CPG §3159); Eight Philosophical Orations; On the Distinction between Essence and Hypostasis (CPG §3196); A Brief Explanation of Psalm 6 (CPG §3156); and On the Creation of Humanity (CPG §3154). 56 VD16 reference (online): ZV 7008, Libri octo de philosophia (Strasbourg: Matthias Schurer, 1512; reprint Paris: J. Bade, 1513). The eight topics were the translation of Beatus Rhenanus: De homine, De anima, De elementis, De viribus animae, De voluntario et involuntario, De fato, De libero abitrio, and De providentia. This work was owned by the University of Wittenberg; see Kusukawa number 138a. For a discussion of its content, see Wicher, Catalogus, 37 and Way, Catalogus, 53 and 142 – 43. On the Distinction between Essence and Hypostasis has also been attributed to Basil, and is therefore also referred to as Epistle 38; see CPG §2900 and §3196; PG 32, 325 – 340. The authorship of the work is still disputed, see Paul J. Fedwick, “A Commentary of Gregory of Nyssa or the 38th Letter of Basil of Caesarea,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44 (1978): 31 – 51. 57 The first (G 3120) is entitled GREGORII. EPISCOPI. NYSENI. VIRI & j j uitae sanctitate & ingenii magnitudine inter Graecos Christianae professionis asser j j tores praecipui. De uitae pfecti/ j j one, siue uita Mysi, Li/ j j ber utilissimus. Per j j Georgium j j Trapezuntium e j j castigatissima j j impressione uulgatus. j j … j j (Impressum Viennae Pannoniae p Hieronymu Vietore j j Expensis Leonardi & Lucae Alantsae fratrum. j j Mense Decembri. Anno. M.DXVII (Vienna: Hieronymus Vietor, 1517). The second (G 3121) is entitled GREGORII j j NYSENI VETVSTISSIMI THE j j ologi, Mystica Mosaicae uitae enarratio, j j perfectum formulam uiuendi, cuili= j j bet Christiano praescribens, j j Gregorio Trapezan j j tio interpre- j j te. j j BASILEAE, ANNO M.D.XXI (IN AEDIBVS AN j j dreae Cratandri, Mense j j Maio (Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1521). The Life of Moses is found in PG 44, 297 – 430; CPG §3159.Trebizond’s translation of the Life

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

243

George Trebizond made in 1446, but which were not published until 1517 in Venice. This was the first Latin translation of Gregory of Nyssa to be printed under his own name.58 Several of Gregory’s works had been attributed to Basil and printed in the Hagenau edition of 1528, the Erasmus edition of 1532, both Basel editions from 1540, and the Greek edition of Basil’s works published in Basel, 1551.59 In 1537, another volume (numbered G 3110 and G 3122 in the VD16) containing works by (or attributed to) Gregory of Nyssa was printed by Melchior Neuß in Cologne.60 The G 3110/3122 contained Denis the Short’s Latin translation of Gregory of Nyssa’s commentary on the creation of humanity (De opificio hominis) and the Apologia in hexaemeron (which the title page claims “has been greatly ignored,” cum indice locupletissimo).61 This book also contains the previously published translation of the Libri octo de philosophia by Rhenanus and the Life of Moses by Trebizond, On the Distinction between Ousia and Hypostasis translated by Joannes Cono (first published in 1512), Gregory Nazianzen’s oration on Gregory of Nyssa (In laudem Gregorii Nysseni, Oration 11, also translated by Cono and published in 1512), and Gregory of Nazianzen’s sermon

58 59

60

61

of Moses was almost a paraphrase. He also omitted the passage concerning apokatastasis, most likely because of its controversial nature; see Wicher, Catalogus, 183. Wicher, Catalogus, 26. Wicher, Catalogus, 27, n. 76. For instance, the 1528 edition attributed On the Distinction between Ousia and Hypostasis to Basil. In the Erasmus edition of 1532 included On the Distinction between Ousia and Hypostasis as well as Gregory’s Oration 2 (Homily on Creation; spurious) and Ad Eustathium. The 1540 Froben edition of Basil (edited by Cornarius) and the 1540 Hervagius edition of Basil (edited by Musculus) both included: Homily 10 and 11 (CPG §3215 and 3216), On Paradise (spurious), On the Distinction between Ousia and Hypostasis, and Ad Eustathium (CPG §3137). A smaller edition of Basil’s works published by Froben in 1544 also included the Distinction between Essence and Hypostasis. The 1551 Greek edition included the same four works as the 1540 editions. Though there are two different listings, the title pages and dates are identical. G3110: D. GREGORII j j EPISCOPI NYSSENI DE CREA= j j tione hominis liber, supplementum Hexameron Basilij j j Magni fratris, Interprete Dionysio Romano Exiguo, j j nunc primum typis excusus. j j [Hrsg. von. (Iohannes No= j j uiomagus… j j )] Item alia eisdem authoris opera … j j Cum indice locupletissimo. j j (Eiusdem de philosophia libri octo, interprete j j Iohanne Conone Norimontano. j j …Eiusdem mystica Mosaicae vie enarratio… j j Geor= j j gio Trapezontio interprete j j Basilij Magni de differentia Vsiae & hypostasis liber … j j interprete F.Io. j j Conone. j j Gregorij Nazianzeni theologi, in laude Gregorij Nys= j j seni de moderandis disputationibus, inter= j j prete Iohanne Oecolampadio. j j COLONIAE, ex officina Melchioris Nouesiani, j j Anno M.D.XXXVII. Mense Martio. j j See Wicher, Catalogus, 37 and Way, Catalogus, 142 – 43. At least one author has called into doubt the attribution of Oration 11 to Gregory Nazianzen, see Reginald Weijenborg, “Some Evidence of the Inauthenticity for ‘Discourse XI’ in Honor of Gregory of Nyssa,” Studia Patristica 17, 3 (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon, 1982): 1145 – 48. See De opificio hominis, CPG §3154; PG 44, 124 – 256. Denis’s Latin translation is found in the PL 67, 345 – 408; Apologia in Hexaemeron, CPG §3153; M. Henniges, Gregorii Nyseni Opera IV, 1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

244

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

On Moderation in Disputation (Oration 32, translated by Oecolampadius).62 I suspect that the reprinting of On the Distinction between Ousia and Hypostasis was prompted by the Trinitarian controversy raging as a result of Servetus’s De trinitatis erroribus (1531), the Dialogorum de Trinitate, and the Iustitia Regni Christi (both from 1532).63 It appears that the fourth work listed in the VD16 (G 3101), was an October 1551 reprint of G 3110 (1537) by the same publisher with a slightly different title.64 In 1555, Heinrich Petri of Basel published a collection of patristic sources, entitled Orthodoxographa, which included two previously published treatises by Gregory (De pauperibus and Benignitate compectendis). The last work of Gregory’s published in the Holy Roman Empire during Melanchthon’s lifetime was a homily on Psalm 6, dated 1556 (G 3113).65 Outside of the German territories, the same trend of publishing Gregory’s works in editions dedicated to Basil or Gregory Nazianzen existed.66 In Venice, 1535, an edition of Basil’s works included Gregory’s On Paradise. In 1536, Gregory’s Liber de homine (a.k.a., De opificio hominis) was published with several orations by Gregory Nazianzen, entitled Orationes novem elegantissimae 62 G3122: D. GREGORII j j EPISCOPI NYSSENI DE CREA= j j tione hominis liber, supplementum Hexamer_n Basilij j j Magni fratris, Interprete Dionysio Romano Exiguo, j j nunc primum typis excusus. j j [Hrsg. von. (Iohannes No= j j uiomagus… j j )] Item alia eisdem authoris opera … j j Cum indice locupletissimo. j j (Eiusdem de philosophia libri octo, interprete j j Iohanne Conone Norimontano. j j …Eiusdem mystica Mosaicae vie enarratio… j j Geor= j j gio Trapezontio interprete j j (Cologne: Melchior von Neuß, 1537). 63 On the Distinction between Ousia and Hypostasis appeared two more times in collections of historical authors; that is, along with Eusebius, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Cassiodorus; see E4276 (Basel: Froben, 1539) and its reprint, E4279 (Basil: Froben, 1554). Of course, as the work was most often attributed to Basil, in occurred in several other works: Basilius Caesariensis, Opera omnia (trans., W. Musculus; Basel: Froben, 1540; reprint Paris: C. Guillard, 1547 and 1550); Basilius Caesariensis, Opera omnia (trans., J. Cornarius; Basel: Froben, 1540 and 1552; reprint, Venice:1548); and in a work edited by J. Herholdt entitled Orthodoxographa (Basel, 1555; reprinted in Venice, 1555, Paris, 1556, and Lyon, 1556). 64 OPERA j j D. GREGORII j j EPISCOPI NYSSENI FRATRIS BASI= j j lij Magni quae hactenus euulgata sunt, omnia, j j in vnum volumen, … j j conge= j j sta, … (interprete Diony- j j sio Romano Exiguo, … j j Io= j j hanne Conone Norimontano. j j Geor- j j gio Trapezontio … j j ) j j Cum indice …. j j (Basilij Magni de differentia Vsia et hypstasis liber, … j j interprete F. Io. j j Canone. j j Gregorij Nazianzeni … in laudem Gregorij Nys- j j seni oratio, interprete F. Io. Conone. j j Eiusdem sermo de moderandis disputationibus, inter- j j prete Iohanne Oecolampadio. j j Coloniae, ex officina Melchioris Nouesiani j j M.D.LI. j j (Mense Octobri, Anno M.D.L. j j ). 65 DIVI GRE= j j GORII NYSAE PONTIFICIS BA= j j silij Magni fratris, in Sextum j j Psalmum breuis explanatio, j j Iacobo Nognere Arago= j j nio Ferdi: Caes:‚ sa= j j cris & Viennae j j Decano in= j j terprete. j j ANNO VERBIGENAE j j 1556. j j Ratisbonae ex officina Ioannis Car= j j bonis Typographi. j j (Regensburg: Hans Kohl, 1556). See PG 44, 608 – 616; CPG §3156. This work is not included in the Catalogus. 66 Again, I draw the reader’s attention to both the Bibliographie zu Gregor von Nyssa, 9 – 23 and Way, Catalogus, 15 – 33.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

245

(Venice: Aldus).67 In 1550 (Paris: Vascosanum), Pietro Zino’s translation of Gregory Nazianzen’s De pauperibus amandis and Gregory of Nyssa’s Benignitate complectendis oratio were published.68 In 1553, the Aldine press published Gregory’s In hexaemeron commentarius (a.k.a., Apologia in Hexaemeron) with Gregory Nazianzen’s Oratio de pauperibus amandis. That same year, the Bishop of Verona sponsored the publication of a work entitled Vitae sanctorum priscorum patrum, which included several works by Gregory.69 In 1557, Gregory’s De immortalitate animae cum sua sorore Macrinae dialogus, translated by Daniel Auge, became available (Paris: A. Gorbinum).70 Finally, a few works stand out and warrant special attention. First, a 1555 Latin translation of Orthodoxae fidei dogmatica panoplia by the Byzantine theologian Euthymius Zigabenus (d. ca. 1118) appeared.71 This work is important because it highlights the transition of many Greek patristic sources to western European scholars through the efforts of Byzantine scholars living in Italy. This work represents perhaps the largest contribution of Gregory’s works to a western European audience. Second, there were at least two instances where Gregory was translated into the vernacular. In 1556 (Vienna), there appeared a German translation of Gregory’s De pauberibus and Benignitate complectendis with Gregory Nazianzen’s De pauperibus amandis. An Italian translation (lingua Toscana) of the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, appeared in Venice, 1560.72 Finally, it is worth noting that Gregory’s work played almost no role in the doctrinal debates of the Reformation until quite late. In 1551, Guilelmus Mor67 See De opificio hominis, CPG §3154. 68 See De beneficentia (vulgo De pauperibus amandis i), CPG §3169. 69 Some of Gregory’s works included in this collection had been previously published but some seem to have appeared for the first time in this volume. The editors took liberties with Gregory’s texts, such as dividing one work into two shorter sections. These titles include: De Zacharia patre Ioannis Baptistae (CPG §3194), De sanctissima dei genitrice (CPG §3194), Vita sancti Stephani protomartyris (CPG §3186 and 3187), Vita sanctorum quaraginta martyrum (CPG §3188 and 3189), Vita sancta martyris Theodorius, Vita sancta Gregorii Thaumaturgi (CPG §3184), Vita pulcheriae puellae magni Theodosii imperatoris filiae, Vita beata Macrinae virginis sororis d. Gregorii Nyssae (CPG §3166), Vita sancti Ephrem Syri (CPG §3193), Vita sancti Miletii archepiscopi Antiocheni (CPG §3183), and Vita magni Basilii (CPG §3185). Volume 5 of the series, published in 1556, included Gregory’s De occursu domini et de deiparente et de iusto Symeone (CPG §3195). These volumes were reprinted in 1556 in both Leiden and Paris. 70 Dialogus de anima et resurrectione, CPG §3149. I believe that this was the first time this work was published. 71 See PG 128 – 31. Works of Gregory included in this collection are: a compilation of catechetical orations, De differentia essentiae et hypostaseos, Contra Ablabium (CPG §3139), Ad Evagrium monachum de divinitate (CPG §3222), Oratio de opificio dei, De cognitione dei, Ad Simplicium (CPG §3140), De precatione, Oratio de baptismo, Adversus Apolinarium (CPG §3143), and De transmutatione dominici corporis et sanguinis (excerpt from Oratio catechetica magna, CPG §3150). 72 De vita Thaumaturgii, CPG §3184.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

246

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

elius of Paris published Gregory’s De iis qui adeunt Hierosolyma (Epistle 2, On Pilgrimages) in Greek with a Latin translation. Therein, Gregory discourages pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Such journeys profit little since Christ is to be found not in an old manger or empty tomb but living in the Eucharist, the singing of psalms, and living a righteous life. The compilers of the Madgeburg Centuries (1562) copied the Latin translation and gave the letter a wider audience. The letter, now made a point of debate, was then defended by Caesar Baronius in his Annales ecclesiastici (1588 – 1607), in which he argued that Gregory was merely pointing out the hardships of pilgrimage for women and monks, and did not intend to forbid all pilgrimages. Robert Bellarmine wondered if the letter was actually written by Gregory and the Roman Catholic apologist Louis Richeome (1604) accused his French Calvinist opponents of forging the document.73 The final occurrence of Gregory’s work in the doctrinal debates within our time period is a 1560 publication in Paris of a collection of patristic citations concerning the Eucharist. There, along with Basil, John Chrysostom, and Justin Martyr, Gregory is listed among the witnesses for the real presence, quoting his discussion of “transelementation” in chapter 37 of the Great Oration.74 Both instances, while provocative indicators of Gregory’s growing importance as a figure in the theological debates of the latter half of the sixteenth century, occurred too late to provoke any comment from Melanchthon.

5.3

Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzen

The VD 16 lists eighty-eight printed works of St. Basil from 1501 to 1600. Out of these eighty-eight, at least sixty-one were printed from 1497 – 1560.75 This number, however, does not exclude the reprint of previous works. For instance, the translations of Basil by Rafaello Maffei, Erasmus, and Wolfgang Musculus were popular and reprinted; also, translations of Basil’s Ad adolescentes were printed frequently in the early 1500s.76 Of the sixty-one works by Basil published 73 See Way, Catalogus, 29 – 30. 74 Liturgiae sive missae sanctorum Patrum (Paris, 1560). Gregory is listed, as “quod sanctificatus panis in corpus dei verbi transmutatur, quodque necesse sit humanae naturae eo participare.” 75 B 638-B 726, volume 2, VD16, 102 – 115. In some cases, the date for the work listed cannot be discerned either because it is not included on the title page (e. g., the Greek edition of Jan Conarius, published by Froben, does not indicate a date, B 639) or because the title page has been lost (e. g., see the material listed between B 683 and B 684). I have counted works only for which the date has been provided. 76 PG 31, 564 – 90; CPG §2867. Ad adolescentes, variously titled De poetarum, oratorum, historicorumque ac philosophorum legendis libris or a similar reference, was printed twenty-six times from 1501 to 1521, see B652-B677, VD 16, 104 – 07. See Luzi Schucan, Das Nachleben

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

247

during Melanchthon’s lifetime, six were available in Greek and six were available in German.77 As early as 1522, Melanchthon was in possession of writings by Basil.78 The most comprehensive study of the reception of Basilian texts is Paul Fedwick’s eight-volume Bibliotheca Basiliana Uniuersalis of the Corpus Christianorum series. Information concerning sixteenth-century editions of Basil’s works are gleaned from this source. The size of Fedwick’s opus is a testimony to the importance and popularity of Basil’s works during the sixteenth century, a popularity nearly matched by the works of Gregory Nazianzen.79 Therefore, while I was able to discuss the broader reception of Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa in the preceding pages, I simply will not be able to do so in a similar manner for Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. For each, I will have to be more selective, focusing on the major editions of their works up to 1560, copies of their works owned by the Wittenberg Library, and direct references to these editions in Melanchthon’s treatises and letters. For our purposes, I will examine five of the most significant editions of Basil’s works: the 1515 (Rome) edition by Maffei; the 1528 (Hagenau) Greek edition by Obsopoeus; the 1532 (Basel) Greek edition by Erasmus; the 1540 (Basel) Latin edition by Musculus; and the 1551 (Basel) Greek edition by Cornarius.80 To this

77

78 79

80

von Basilius Magnus ‘Ad adolescentes’: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des christlichen Humanismus (Geneva: Droz, 1973). Greek editions include B 638 (edited by Erasmus; Froben, 1532); B 650 (a collection of works in Greek and Latin, including Basil’s Ad adolescentes with related works on the education of the youth, including Erasmus and Melanchthon; Basel, 1537); B651 (Ad adolescentes with two letters, one from Basil, the other from Gregory Nazianzen; Frankfurt a.O., 1560); B 688 (an early Greek edition of works by Basil and Gregory Nazianzen; Hagenau, 1528); and B 89 (a Greek version of “Grammatica Exercitatione liber unus”; Basel, 1553). German editions include B 679 (Basil on prayer, a German translation from the Latin; Augsburg, 1522); B 91 (a German translation of the section concerning Basil from the Historia Tripartita; Magdeburg, 1549); B 692 (a work against drunkenness and an disordered life; Frankfurt a.M., 1544); B 693 (a work against usury, “newly translated into German/ newlich verteütschet” by Oecolampadius; Augsburg, 1521); B 694 (two sermons — one from Basil and the other from John Chrysostom — against usury, translated by Georg Witzel; Leipzig, 1539); and B 722 (a translation of the Rule, though it is not clear whether it is the little or the great Asceticon or both, by Oecolampadius; Augsburg, 1521). See the Letter to Spalatin (MBW 247 [T1, 510]/CR 1, 547) and the Annotationes in Epistulas Pauli ad Cornithios, 1522 (MSA 4, 97). A study of Fedwick is also necessarily supplemented by the work of Irena Backus, Lectures humanistes de Basile de C¦sar¦e: traductiones latines, 1439 – 1618 (Paris: Brepols, 1990) and La Patristique et les guerres de religion en France: Êtude de l’activit¦ litt¦raire de Jacques de Billy, 1535 – 1581 (Paris: Institut d’Êtudes Augustiniennes, 1993). The former is an examination of the various motivations held by Humanists to translate the works of Basil; the latter is a study of the efforts by Jacques de Billy, abbot and patristic scholar, to make Greek patristic sources (including Basil, John Chrysostom, and especially Gregory Nazianzen) available without allowing partisan concerns to determine his translations. The VD16 references to the last four are as follows: Obsopoeus (1528) B688; Erasmus (1532)

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

248

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

collection, I will also briefly mention here a 1537 edition of Basil’s Instituenda studiorum ratione ad nepotes suos, which included reflections on pedagogy from Erasmus and Melanchthon.81 The fact that Basil’s reflections on the education of youth using ancient literature is printed along with similar reflections by two prominent Christian Humanists reveals their conscious effort to revive and be associated with a particular pedagogical model. I include the Maffei edition (Rome, 1515) because it was owned by the Wittenberg University library.82 This work was a single volume (173 pages) of various works in Latin translation, including Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 43; seventeen of Basil’s sermons on the Psalms (two of which are spurious); twenty “moral homilies”; a composite of De Baptismo, sections 1 – 2; and ten “ascetica” (all spurious).83 From the content of this volume and the fact that it was owned by the Wittenberg library, we can speculate that it was at least one of the sources for Melanchthon’s knowledge of Oration 43 as well as some of Ps-Basil’s monastic rules. The Obsopoeus edition (Hagenau, 1528) is dedicated to Willibald Pirkheimer and directed against adversariorum impia perfidia et uanitate detecta et profligata; his most likely targets were Thomas Münzer and Johannes Oecolampadius.84 It contains a collection of 118 letters in Greek; 61 from Basil and 57 from Gregory Nazianzen, and concludes with a biography of Basil taken from the Suida. Though the preface claims to offer previously unpublished material, five

81 82

83

84

B 638; Musculus (1540) B 643; and Cornarius (1551) B 639, a Latin translation of the same was also published in 1551 by the Froben press, B 644. Editors will sometimes use different names. In addition to Maffei, a.k.a. Volaterra, one also needs to note: Cornarius, a.k.a. Hahnpol (and sometimes Hahnpul or Hagenbut) and Musculus, a.k.a. Müslin (and sometimes Maüslin). See VD16 B 650, in both Greek and Latin, published in Basel, 1537. This work is listed in the Wittenberg Library catalogue, Kusukawa #343 g. Opera magni Basilii: per Raphaelem Volateranum Nup. in Latinum conuersa, Kusukawa #124. Raffaello Maffei (1451 – 1522) was born in Volterra. He was a student of George Trebizond and had published translations of Homer’s Odyssey, the Economists of Xenophon, and the De bello Persico et Vandalico by Procopius. Maffei even established an Academy in his home for fostering Christian and classical learning. See Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, vol. 1, 202 and vol. 2/2, 842 – 43. All subsequent references are from volume one. The sermons on the Psalms are most likely the Latin translation of Rufinus, Homiliae super psalmos, CPG §2836. The ascetic works are: CPG §2875 (Asceticon magnum sive Questiones); CPG §2876 (Asceticon parvum); CPG §2877 (Regulae morales); CPG §2893 (Sermo 15, De vita monastica); and CPG §2895 (Constitutiones asceticae). For more information, see Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 202 – 5. See Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 206; the edition is discussed 205 – 7. Vincent Obsopoeus (+1539) was a friend of Joachim Camerarius and in 1529 became rector of the gymnasium in Anspach (ibid., 205 n. 12). The original Hagenau printer, Thomas Anselm, had begun work in Pforzheim and moved to Tübingen where he employed both Melanchthon and Oecolampadius. Upon his death, Johannes Setzer, his son-in-law, assumed control of the press. Setzer had earlier been a student in Wittenberg and published many of Melanchthon’s works in the 1520s.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

249

of the letters had been published in 1499. The stated source for his edition was a collection of manuscripts once owned by King Corvinus of Hungary (1458 – 1490).85 The Erasmus edition (Basel, 1532) is dedicated to Jocopo Sadoleto, bishop of Carpentras (made a cardinal in 1537), and a respected Latinist known for his conciliatory approach to Protestants and his debate with Calvin. This Greek edition of 674 pages contains the six sermons of the Hexaemeron; an assortment of homilies, some on the Psalms (some spurious); book one of De Spiritu Sancto; and reprints the letters of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen first published in the Obsopoeus edition of 1528, with only “slight variations in some of the titles.”86 From evidence found in the painting of Melanchthon from 1559, we know that he had access to this edition and it might have been the source for his references to the Hexaemeron and On the Holy Spirit. The Musculus edition (Basel, 1540) is a two-volume work in Latin. It contains some works by Gregory Nazianzen (including Oration 43 and 80 letters, detailed below), along with Basil’s sermons on the Hexaemeron, several letters and homilies, including a reprint of the Maffei edition from 1515.87 Wolfgang Musculus was the first Protestant to produce such an edition of the Fathers. According to Fedwick, this spurred a reaction from Roman Catholics in an attempt to produce “orthodox” translations of their own, though these translations were often exact reproductions of work done by Protestant editors. The situation was so polemical that the Musculus edition Fedwick analyzed for his own work was from the National Library of Madrid; but the pious Spanish Catholic librarian had torn out the title page and expunged Musculus’s name throughout.88 Finally, the Cornarius edition (Basel, 1551) was an attempt to provide all the known works of Basil in Greek within one volume (a Latin translation became available the next year).89 Though Janus Cornarius was a Protestant, he dedicated the work to Julius Pflug (1499 – 1564), a proponent of moderate reform and the last Roman Catholic bishop of Nuremberg. Cornarius reprinted the Erasmus 85 Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 206, n. 15. 86 Hexaemeron: PG 32, 209 – 494; CPG § 2835. De spiritu sancto: PG 32, 108 – 73; CPG § 2839. Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 206 n. 15; the edition is described on pages 208 – 217 and also in Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 2/2, 849. 87 See Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 221 – 225 and 2/2, 855. Wolfgang Musculus (1497 – 1563) was a former Benedictine monk, deacon at the Strasbourg cathedral, and parish pastor in Augsburg. He left Augsburg in 1549 under the Interim and became a professor of theology in Bern. See Way, Catalogus, 115. 88 Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 221 and 222 n. 35. 89 Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 236 – 39 and 2/2, 859. Janus Cornarius (1500 – 1558) was a physician who had learned Latin and Geek from Peter Mosellanus and became a Master at Wittenberg in 1521. He was especially interested in the work of Greek medical authors; in particular, he produced a translation of the works of Hippocrates. See Way, Catalogus, 117 – 18.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

250

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

edition of 1532 (which itself reproduced the Obsopoeus edition of 1528) along with a reprint of the 1535 edition produced in England by Reginald Pole.90 The works of Gregory Nazianzen were popular throughout the centuries. The first Latin translations of Gregory were made by Rufinus. A popular biography of Gregory was written in the seventh century by a “Gregory Presbyter,” of whom next to nothing is known. This work was translated from the Greek into Latin in the tenth century. In the west, a large portion of Gregory’s work was known through John Scotus Eriugena’s translation of Maximus the Confessor, who often cited the Cappadocian.91 In Byzantium, the orations of Gregory were the most copied of all of Gregory’s works.92 As early as 1504, the Aldine press of Venice published sixty-six poems by Gregory.93 Thus, throughout the Christian tradition, the marked interest in Gregory was as literary as it was theological. In the Renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, however, there is a more pronounced interest in the theological works of Gregory. We are able to discern this from the nature of the works most printed and copied.94 The sixteenth-century translators and editors in the German territories most involved in the transmission of Gregory’s works were Erasmus, Peter Mosellanus, Wilibald Pirkheimer, and Johannes Oecolampadius.95 The VD16 lists sixty90 For information on the Pole edition, see Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana, 217 – 221. 91 For the early biography by Gregory Presbyter, see Agnes Clare Way, Catalogus, vol. 2, 51. See also Bettina Windau, “Gregory Presbyter,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 268. For information on the transmission of Gregory through Maximus via Eriugena; see Way, Catalogus, ibid., 47. 92 According to John McGuckin, “The orations [of Gregory] were so valuable, they remain the most copied genre of all Byzantine manuscripts after the Bible,” see McGuckin, Nazianzen, 402. This is a fitting testimony to a man who is called “the Christian Demosthenes.” Moreover, Gregory edited his own poems and orations later in life with the intention that they be used as models for teaching rhetorical form (ibid., 118 and 376). 93 For the list of poems printed and the number of subsequent reprints, see Way, Catalogus, 65 – 68. 94 Way, Catalogus, 49: “The works most frequently translated were those of a didactic nature which abounded in biblical quotations, such as the Apologeticus . . . the five Theological Orations . . . and those which teach virtues in everyday life, as the Oratio de Pace prima and De pauperum amore, the liturgical orations, as In Theophania and In Pentecosten. Among the poems, Exhortatio ad Virginem is the most commonly translated, closely followed by the Monosticha.” 95 Reference to the VD16 for each author is as follows: Erasmus: G3020 (a collection of sermons in Latin translation, some based on the work of Rufinus and Pirkheimer ; Cologne, 1530); G3040 (a collection of letters from both Basil and Gregory Nazianzen in Greek; from the Froben press in Basel, 1532; this edition is a reprint of the first Hagenau edition of 1528 by Vincent Obsopoaeus, G3039 = B688); G3060 (Gregory’s reflections on the parables and miracles in the Gospels, included with works by Epiphanius, Sophronius, and Gennadius in Greek and Latin; Basel, 1529). Peter Mosellanus: G3037 (a Latin translation of In natalitia Christi festa [Oration 38]; Cologne, 1518); G3094 (a Latin printing of the First Theological Oration [Oration 27]; Leipzig,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

251

three printed works of Gregory Nazianzen. Of these works, fifty are in Latin, nine in Greek, and four are in German.96 Further, nine of the sixty-three editions present works by Gregory with other authors, most often with Basil.97 In fact, the earliest printed Greek edition of Gregory’s work was published in 1528 by Vincentius Obsopoeus, which included eighty letters of Basil and Gregory.98 The earliest edition of Gregory’s works listed is a 1508 Latin translation of the Apologeticus, a commentary on the priesthood, and other works.99 The first German translation of Gregory appeared in 1519 by Oecolampadius.100 The

96

97

98 99

100

1519); and G3096 (a Latin translation from the Greek of the Five Theological Orations [Oration 27 – 31]; from the Froben press in Basel, 1523). Wilibald Pirkheimer : G3057 (a Latin translation of six orations, In natalem Saluatoris, In Festum Epiphaniorum, In Sanctum Lauacrum, In Sanctam Resurrectionem, In Sanctam Pentecostem, and In Encaenia siue novam dominicam; Nuremberg, 1521), these orations were reprinted in the 1531 edition; G3073 (a Latin translation of De Officio Episcopi; Nuremberg, 1529); G3081 (a Latin translation of two orations Adversus Julianum [Orations 4 and 5]; Nuremberg, 1528); and G3082 (a collection of thirty orations and the Life of Gregory by Gregory Presbyter translated by Pirkheimer and posthumously published under the auspices of Erasmus; the Froben press, Basel, 1531). For a detailed list of the specific orations and letters included in this 1531 edition, see Way, Catalogus, 53. See Niklas Holzberg, Willibald Pirkheimer: Griechischer Humanismus in Deutschland (Munich: W. Fink, 1981). Johannes Oecolampadius: G3025 (a Latin translation from the Greek of De amandis pauperibus [Oration 14], Ad virginem admonitorius [Poem 1.2.3], and In laudes Maccabaeorum [Oration 15]; Augsburg, 1519); G3027 (a German translation from the Greek of Ad virginem admonitorius; Augsburg, 1519); G3031 (a German translation from the Greek of De amandis pauperibus; Mainz, 1521); G3048 (a Latin translation of the sermon In Pascha, Gregory’s exegesis of Matthew 19, and the oration In laudes Cypriani martyris; Augsburg, 1519); and G3061 (a Latin translation of De moderandis disputationibus, a “most wise sermon”; Augsburg, 1521). See Ernst Staehelin, “Die Väter-Übersetzungen Oekolampads” Schweizerische theologische Zeitschrift 33 (1916): 57 – 91. The Greek editions are listed as G3019, G3039 (= B688), G3040, G3059, G3060, G3083, G3087, and G3088, G3098. The German editions are listed as G3027, G3028, G3031, and G3051. See VD16, vol. 8, 121 – 32. For a modern list of sixteenth-century editions of Nazianzen, see Irena Backus, La patristique et les guerres de religion en France: Êtude de l’activit¦ litt¦raire de Jacques de Billy, 1535 – 1581 (Paris: Êtudes augustiniennes, 1993). The Monadia (i. e., Oration 43) of Gregory was printed in five editions of Basil, see G3065, G3066, G3067, G3068, and G3069 (see VD16 B640 and B644, for but two examples). These editions reprint the translation made by Raphael Volaterranus, a.k.a. Raffaello Maffei (1451 – 1522). Basilii Magni et Gregorii Nazianzeni epistolae graecae (Hagenau, 1528), VD16 B688. VD16 catalogue number G3032. The title page reads “Hi sunt in hoc Codice libelli j j X. diui Gregorij Nazianzeni j j Apologeticus. Liber i. j j De epiphanijs siue natali domini j j De luminibus. quod est de secundis epiphanijs j j de fide liber i. j j De Nicena fide: de penthecoste & spiritu sancto j j De semetipso ex agro reuerso. j j De dictis hieremie presente imperatore j j De reconciliatione & vnitate monachorum j j De grandinis vastatatione j j De arrianis q non liceat sp & publice de’ deo cotedere. j j (translatus a quoda Rufino . . . j j ” The work was edited by Johannes Adelphus (Strasbourg: Johannes Knoblach, 1508). This edition is not discussed by Way in the Catalogus. The work is a sermon by Gregory in praise of virginity, translated from the Greek into

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

252

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

number and diversity of Gregory’s works published in the sixteenth century testify to his popularity. Nonetheless, the first Greek edition of Gregory’s opera omnia did not appear until 1550. In 1540, two independent translations (from earlier Greek editions) were published as Opera omnia Basilii. One was printed in Basel by Johannes Herwagen and was largely the work of Wolfgang Musculus. It contained eighty letters from Gregory and Oration 43. The other, likewise printed in Basel but by the Froben press, included the same letters along with the Monodia in Basilium Magnum, and was largely the work of Janus Cornarius.101 In 1550 two editions appeared dedicated solely to Gregory’s works, one in Greek and one in Latin. The Greek edition was published by Herwagen in Basel. According to Way, it included “eighty letters, many poems, and most, if not all, of the orations.”102 That same year, Musculus created the Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera Omnia, a single volume of Gregory’s works in Latin. Musculus gathered together the contents of the three previously minted works (the sixty-six poems published by Aldus in 1504, the thirty orations by Pirkheimer in 1531, and his own collection of eighty orations in 1540) and added five previously unpublished translations.103

German, see G3027, “Von den fruchtbarlichen j j auch von den schoedlich= j j en windenn des gar/ j j tens der seele. j j Ain nüzlicher Sermon von j j den weysen Junnckfrawen j j dero sancta Katherina j j aine gewesen ist. j j Ain regiment der waren Chri j j stenlichen Junnckfrawen j j auß greckischer sprach j j in teutsch gespracht” (Augsburg: Sigmund Grimm and Marx Wirsung, 1519). This translation corresponds to another of the same sermon made the same year in a Latin edition, see G3025, “DE AMANDIS PAV j j peribus, Gregorij Naza= j j zeni Episcopli & j j Theologi j j sermo. j j Eiusdem ad uirginem ad= j j monitorius. j j Euisdem laudes Macca= j j baeorum. j j Interprete Io. Oecolampa= j j dio concionatore Au j j gustensi” (Augsburg: Sigmund Grimm and Marx Wirsung, 1519). Two years later, in 1521, Oecolampadius would provide another German translation from the Greek of Gregory’s De amandis pauperibus, see G3031 (published in Mainz by Johannes Schöffer). 101 For a list of the specific letters included in each edition, see Way, Catalogus, 54 – 55. According to Way, though the two editions contain the same letters, “the two translations, however, are quite dissimilar, and that the same letters were translated in the same order naturally follows from the fact that the letters of Gregory belong to the collection of 180 letters of Basil and Gregory published in Greek in 1528 and again in 1532, and published in Latin for the first time in these editions. . . . It seems that there is no connection between the two translations which appeared during the same year” (ibid., 115, see also 117). 102 Way, Catalogus, 47. 103 Way, Catalogus, 48.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

The Cappadocian Canon: History of Text Reception in the Sixteenth Century

5.4

253

The Wittenberg University Catalogue of 1536104

The Wittenberg University library catalogue of 1536 helps us to identify something of the reading material that was available to Melanchthon, his colleagues, and students during the middle point of his career. The library catalogue has some limitations for our purposes. First, simply because works are not listed in the library holdings does not mean that Melanchthon did not have had access to such material, either as a personal copy or loaned by a friend. For instance, the 1528 Greek edition of the letters between Basil and Gregory Nazianzen are not listed in the catalogue. Nonetheless, we know that Melanchthon was both aware of the edition and cited it, as one of his letters indicates.105 Second, the date of the library catalogue means that we do not know if the University acquired the subsequent editions of opera omnia of both Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. Nonetheless, it is an important window into something of the Cappadocian sources that were available. The library catalogue does not list any works by Gregory Thaumaturgus. The library owned one edition of Gregory of Nyssa’s works, the Libri VIII (Kusukawa number 138a), which was published in 1512 in Strasbourg by Matthias Schurer. According to the Catalogus, it contains the Libri octo de philosophia/ De natura hominis), the De differentia essentiae et hypostaseos, and the De opificio hominis. The book also includes three works by Gregory Nazianzen, which are two letters and his oration in honor of Gregory of Nyssa (Oration 11). All were translated by Johannes Cono, except for the two letters, which were translated by Beatus Rhenanus.106 It is not possible to discern when and from where (or from whom) this text was acquired by the university. This 1512 work will help us make an important observation concerning the reception of particular authors in past centuries. We are now able to indicate 104 See Sachico Kusukawa, A Wittenberg Catalogue of 1536 (Cambridge: L.P. Publications, 1995). 105 In a letter dated 1 September 1530 (MBW 1057 [T4/2, 626]/CR 2, 337), while Melanchthon was in Augsburg attending the Imperial Diet, he wrote to his friend Joachim Camerarius in Nuremberg looking for a quotation from Gregory Nazianzen regarding councils which Melanchthon knew could be found in the 1528 Hagenau edition published by Johannes Setzer. From a letter of thanks Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius, we know that he received the edition. Melanchthon also included the citation in Greek with a Latin translation, 10 September 1530 (MBW 1071 [T4/2, 673]/CR 2, 358 – 59). That same day, Melanchthon also sent a copy of this quotation to Luther in a letter via Veit Dietrich (1506 – 1549), a trusted friend of both, who was waiting with Luther at Coburg during the Diet (MBW 1072 [T4/2, 677]/CR 2, 361). 106 See CPG §3196; PG 32, 325 – 340, also listed as Basil, Epistle 38, see CPG §2900. Wicher, Catalogus, 37 and Paul J. Fedwick, “A Commentary of Gregory of Nyssa or the 38th Letter of Basil of Caesarea,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44 (1978): 31 – 51. This work is not listed in the VD16.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

254

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

some errors in attribution. For instance, De differentia essentiae et hypostaseos was attributed to Basil in the sixteenth century while modern scholars generally recognize the work as written by Gregory of Nyssa.107 On the other hand, De natura hominis was attributed to Gregory, but scholars now recognize it as the work of Nemesius of Emesa, a Syrian bishop of the late fourth century. The work was highly regarded during the medieval era and the Renaissance for its systematic anthropology, dealing with physiology, psychology, ethics, and an antidualistic description of creation.108 Little else is known of Nemesius. It is not uncommon for the praiseworthy work of an author who promoted heterodox theories elsewhere to be ascribed to an author whose orthodoxy was unquestioned.109 However, this does not seem to have been the case here. The origin of the error lies with the first translator of the work from Greek into Latin, Burgundio of Pisa (d. 1194).110 Melanchthon demonstrates a knowledge of De natura hominis at least twice and praises the work as a Christian synthesis of classical pagan natural science.111 The library catalogue lists three holdings for Basil. The first is a copy of De Invidia, bound in a volume which also included Athanasius’s Commentary on the Psalms and Plutarch’s De differentia inter odium et invidiam, published in

107 Wicher, Catalogus, 26 though the conclusions reached are far from conclusive. 108 PG 45, 188 – 221; §3219. See also C. P. Vetten, “Nemesius,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 431. 109 For instance, works by Apollinaris of Laodicea (ca. 315 – 392) survived after his Christology were condemned as a result of the attribution of some of his other work to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, and Julius or Felix of Rome; such as the Fides secundum partem, De unione corporis et divinitatis in Christo, De fide et incarnatione contra adversarios, and Ad Iovianum. See Gerhard Feige, “Apollinaris of Laodicea,” Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, 39. Conversely, the Metaphrasis in Ecclesiasten by Gregory Thaumaturgus was often attributed to Gregory Nazianzen, though this is more likely due to a confusion of names rather than a judgment on the orthodoxy of Gregory Thaumaturgus. 110 Wicher, Catalogus, 25. See also her article on “Nemesius Emesenus,” Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, vol. 6 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1986), 31 – 72. 111 In a preface to a Commentary on the Soul, Melanchthon wrote “While there is a need for erudition in order to expound all these great things in the Church, there also survives the commentaries on the soul of the ancient theologians, such as Gregory of Nyssa, who is the brother of Basil of Caesarea,” Preface to Commentary on the Soul, 1540 (MBW 2361/CR 3, 907 – 14). See also an oration in which Melanchthon said “While I know that in the past [heretics], bewitched by fanatical madness, brought about great upheavals in the Church by badly constructed opinions of natural philosophers, there is nevertheless no doubt that the Church has need of well-informed and genuine natural philosophy. . . . Thus, Gregory of Nyssa published a long commentary on the parts of man. . . . So many times, in most serious theological controversies, one has to speak of the causes, the variety of which is taught learnedly only in natural philosophy,” On Natural Philosophy, 1542 (CR 11, 555 – 60), English translations from Kusukawa, Orations on Philosophy and Education, trans. Christine F. Salazar (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999), 146 and 136, respectively.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Patristic Anthologies in the Sixteenth Century

255

1508.112 It also lists a copy of Maffei’s Basilii Magni opera, published in 1515 in Rome.113 Finally, the catalogue also lists a copy of Basil’s De instituenda studiorum ratione ad nepotes suos, in Greek and Latin, published in 1537 in Basel.114 This is the previously mentioned work which includes not only Basil’s treatise on the education of the youth but also reflections on the same topic by Erasmus and Melanchthon. Finally, the library catalogue lists four editions of Gregory Nazianzen’s work, two in Latin and two in Greek. The two works in Latin are a 1519 translation of the sermon in praise of Cyprian by Oecolampadius (G3048) and the 1508 translation of the Apologeticus by Adelphus (G2032).115 The two works in Greek are the previously mentioned 1504 Aldine collection of poems as well as the 1516 collection of sixteen orations, also published by the Aldine Press.116

6.

Patristic Anthologies in the Sixteenth Century

Several anthologies of patristic sources were produced by both those loyal to the papacy and Evangelicals in order to show the Fathers supported their respective affirmations. Most of these anthologies, however, were produced by Evangelicals. A great deal of research into these anthologies has been undertaken by Anthony N. S. Lane.117 It is not my purpose here to offer a detailed discussion of these anthologies, but merely to indicate to the reader just how popular and prominent this form of literature was in the sixteenth century. The more significant anthologies include: the Confutatio sophistices & Questionum curiosarum ex Origene, Cypriano, Nazianzeno, Cyrillo, Chrysostomo, Hieronymo, Ambrosio, Augustino, Athanasio, Lactantio by the Carthusian Otto Brunfels (1520); Unio Dissidentium by Hermann Bodius (1527, 112 Kusukawa number 123a. See VD16 A3987. 113 Kusukawa number 124. Since this work was printed in Rome, it is not listed in the VD16. 114 Kusukawa number 343 g, VD16 B650. Both the title page of B650 and Kusukawa note that the work was published in 1537, though the library catalogue is dated 1536. 115 Gregorij Nazianzenj sermones, Eiusdem laudes Cyprianj martyris Ecolampadio interprete (Kusukawa number 136a) and some unbound leaves from the 1508 edition of the Apologeticus (Kusukawa number 137a). 116 The Carmina graeca, cum versione latina (Kusukawa number 27) and the Orationes lectissimae XVI, edited by M. Musurus (Kusukawa number 28). 117 A. N. S. Lane, “Justification in Sixteenth-Century Patristic Anthologies,” Auctoritas Patrum I, 69 – 95, see especially the list of anthologies and frequency of patristic citations provided on pages 94 – 95. Out of the thirty-five Fathers quoted in the works which Lane has studied (from 1527 – 1565), Augustine, Ambrose, and Chrysostom are cited most. Basil ranks twelfth, Gregory Nazianzen ranks twenty-sixth. See also Pierre Petitmengin, “Les Patrologies avant Migne,” Migne et la renouveau des ¦tudes patristiques, Actes du colloque de Saint-Flour, 7 – 8 juillet 1975, ed. Andr¦ Mondouze (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

256

The Reception of Cappadocian Texts in the Sixteenth Century

which went through 40 editions!); the Sententiae ex doctoribus collectae by Robert Barnes [a.k.a. Antonius Anglus] (1530); Conciliatio sacrae scripturae et patrum by Batholomew Westheimer (1536; reprint in 1538 and 1540); De consensu verae ecclesiae et sanctorum patrum super praecipuis christianae religionis articulis by Erasmus Sarcerius (1546 and 1547); the Loci Communes rerum theologicarum by Johannes Hoffmeister [a Reform Catholic theologian] (1547); the Catholicus consensus de sola fide in Christum iustificante by an anonymous editor (1551); the Enchiridion sententiarum by Andreas Musculus (1552); and the Catechismus, Glaub, Leer, und Bekentnis der heiligen alten Leerer by Andreas Musculus (1556). It is impossible to know how many or which of these volumes Melanchthon read. Given his interest in patristic sources, the fact that some of these anthologies were produced by his colleagues, and the fact that Melanchthon composed his own anthology of patristic sources, it is difficult to imagine that he would have been uninterested in such sources.118

118 The first reflection Melanchthon offered on reading patristic authors, which Fraenkel calls his first patrology, was De Erasmo et Luthero Elogion, Ratio Discendi, et quo Iudicio Augustinus, Ambrosius, Origenes ac Reliqui Doctores Legendi Sint, 1522 (CR 20, 704). In the Eucharistic controversy of 1529 – 1530 with Oecolampadius, Melanchthon and the Swiss Reformers exchanged conflicting anthologies of the Fathers claiming patristic consensus on the Eucharist; see Sententiae Veterum aliquot scriptorum de Coena Domini, 1529 (CR 23, 744 – 45).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Abbreviations

Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte The Book of Concord. English translations are from Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). BSLK Die Bekenntinisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutheranischen Kirche: Herausgegeben im Gedenkjahr der Augsburgischen Konfession 1930, third edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986, reprint). Catalogus Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, eds. Paul Oskar Kristeller, F. Edward Cranz, and Virginia Brown (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1960-present). Clavis Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vols, ed., Maurice Geerard (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974 – 1998). CR Corpus Reformatorum: Philippi Melancthonis opera quae supersunt omnia, 28 vols., eds. Karl Brentschneider and Heinrich Bindseil (Halle: A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1834 – 60). ESDD Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, ed. Heinrich Denzinger and Adolf Schönmetzer(Freiberg i.B.: Herder, 1976). LThK Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 11 vols., ed. Michael Buchberger, Josef Höfer, and Karl Rahner (Freiberg, i.B.: Herder, 1957 – 68). LW Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 55 vols., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, Helmut T. Lehmann, and others (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955 – 86). Melanchthon Heinz Scheible, Melanchthon: Eine Biographie (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1997). MBW Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe, ed., Heinz Scheible (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt : Frommann-Holzboog, 1977 – present). This collection is a digest and dating of Melanchthon’s correspondence. References to MBW are to the register number, followed by the appropriate page number. Volumes 1 – 8 contain the register and six subsequent volumes are indices to people and place as well as corrections. MBW [T] Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe: Texte, ed., Richard Wetzel et al. References to MBW[T] indicate the volumes (currently, eight, up to the year 1539) in which the text of the letters is

ARG BC

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

258

MSA Pauck

PG PL Preus RGG

Testimonia TRE VD16

WA

Abbreviations

provided, followed by the appropriate page number. For each case, references to Melanchthon’s letters follow this corrected version and are crossreferenced to the Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 1 – 10. Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl [Studienausgabe], ed. Robert Stupperich, 7 vols. (Güttersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1951 – 75). Philip Melanchthon, “Loci Communes Theologici, 1521,” Melanchthon and Bucer, ed. and trans. Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 3 – 152. Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Migne, 1857 – 1866). Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Latina, ed., J.-P. Migne (Paris: Migne, 1844 – 1891). Philipp Melanchthon, Loci Communes, 1543, ed. and trans. J.A.O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia, 1992). Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 8 vols., ed. Harz Deiter Betz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998 – 2005). Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva: E. Droz, 1961). Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 36 vols., ed. Gerhard Müller, Horst Balz, and Gerhard Krause (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1976 – 2004). Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts: VD 16, ed. Irmgard Bezzel (Stuttgart :Hiersemann, 1983 – present). Martin Luther, Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe [Schriften], 65 vols. (Weimar : H. Böhlau, 1883 – 1993).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

Index

Abecedarians 102 – 107 Academy – within Melanchthon studies 15 – necessity of 19, 20 – unity with Church 14, 18, 60, 105, 113 – 114 Adages (Erasmus) 217 Adagia (Erasmus) 35 adiaphora 164, 211 Adversus anabaptistas iudicium (Melanchthon) 105, 110 – 111 Agricola, Johann 71, 78, 184 Aland, Kurt 37 Aldine Press 69 – 70 Ambrose, Saint 97, 139, 159 Amsdorf, Nickolaus von 109, 147, 159, 165, 212 – 213 Anabaptists – Cappadocian testimony against 65, 142 – corruption of Church 123 – divine inspiration from Holy Spirit 20, 110, 115 – 116, 117 – holding public office 111 – legal injunctions against 107 – Melanchthon’s response to 105, 108, 110 – 113, 116 – and papal authority 115 – persecution of 111 – political radicalism of 117 – 118, 128 – re-baptism affirmation 106, 109, 116 – self-education of 110, 117 – theological errors of 112, 116, 117

– threat to social order 117, 119 Annotations on Some Obscure Chapters of Genesis (Melanchthon) 141 Anshelm, Thomas 41, 78 anti-Trinitarians – affirmations of 123, 127, 128 – biblical testimony against 125 – 128 – Cappadocian testimony 19, 65, 106, 122, 142 – Church’s definition of logos 63 – 64, 127 – corruption of Church 123 – ecumenical creeds against 54 – freedom of theological expression 122 – 123 – and Islam 124 – logos as speech of God 63, 123, 125 – Melanchthon’s writings against 4, 122 – 128, 131 – Thaumaturgus’s works against 17, 106 See also Servetus, Michael Apostolic Canons 84 apostolic succession 58, 114, 140, 160 Aquinas, Thomas – and Eucharist 188 – Law-Gospel distinction 19 – Melanchthon criticism of 20, 38, 168 – on monasticism 168 – and patristic texts 25, 78 Argyropoulos, John 68, 69 Arianism 98, 136 Arians 92, 97, 98 – 99, 130, 174 Asceticon (Basil) 166

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

260

Index

Augsburg Confession – adherence to 163 – affirmation of 198 – and Apology 166, 175 – 176 – Article seven 52 – Article twenty 210 – Article twenty-eight 156 – Article twenty-four 172 – 173 – Article twenty-seven 167 – and Book of Concord 213 – 214 – Confutation to 158, 174 – 175 – and Creeds 63, 130 – 131 – ecclesiastical power 156 – and Eucharist 183, 195 – and good works 210 – and grace 209 – 210 – Greek sources in 177 – and justification 210 – legal toleration to churches of 163, 164 – mass 172 – 173 – monasticism 166 – 167, 169 – papacy 52 – references to Basil 169 – Variata 195 Augsburg Interim 164, 165, 177, 209 – 214, 215 Augustine, Saint – anti-Pelagian writings 146, 148, 154, 157, 180, 184 – condemnation of Arians 174 – as consistent Father 57 – criticism of 20, 90 – De Spiritu et Littera 62 – De Trinitate 146 – on Eucharist 184, 187, 193 – 194 – freedom of the will 184 – 185 – and grace 145 – 146, 149, 153, 184, 202, 208, 209 – and Heidelberg Disputation 70 – influence on Karlstadt 108 – on justification 145 – 146 – Law-Gospel distinction 19 – mass as sacrifice 174 – On the Spirit and the Letter 148 – On the Trinity 133

Backus, Irena 16, 43 baptism – Anabaptists’ re-baptism affirmation 106, 109, 116 – Basil on 139, 140 – compared to monastic life 167, 168 – Cyprian’s theology of 46 – Gregory Nazianzen on 99 – Holy Spirit through 139 – 140 – for infants 110, 111, 113 – Melanchthon on 110, 113, 140, 190 – and original sin 111 – sacrament of 190 – and Trinity 140, 135 Barth, Karl 14 Bartholomew of Cologne 78 Basil of Caesarea, Saint – apostolic authority of 146, 166 – on baptism 139, 40 – biographical information 17, 91 – 92, 95, 96 – as bishop 92, 96, 98 – brother of Gregory of Nyssa 17 – as Cappadocians 16 – chain of teachers 58 – 60, 139 – confirms Scripture and Creeds 126 – conflict with Valens 93, 96, 164, 165 – contributions to Christian doctrine 96 – 97 – and Cranch the Younger painting 101 – criticism of 87 – 89, 90 – defends Nicene Creed 17, 97 – Divine Liturgy of 53, 170, 171 – 172, 175, 176 – 177, 178 – 179, 181 – education of 17, 92, 96, 98 – eloquence of 121 – on episcopal oversight 160 – Erasmus edition of 134 – on Eucharist 193, 196 – as father of monasticism 88, 97 – freedom of the will 185, 201, 202, 217 – 218 – frustration with Gregory Nazianzen 17 – on grace 101, 102, 103, 104, 149 – 150, 180, 202, 207 – 208, 209, 217

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

261

Index

– – – – – –

grammar of theology, 62 on Holy Spirit 139 – 140, 141, 197 homily on humility 94, 97, 101 influence of 65, 67, 92, 97 invocation of saints 89 – 90 on justification 88, 148 – 149, 150 – 155, 180 – knowledge of natural philosophy 121 – Lette 127, 134 – letters of 95, 134 – in Loci communes 131, 132, 133, 135, 138 – mass as sacrifice 174 – as model for princes 160 – 161, 180 – model of theologians 88, 97, 100, 129 – monasticism 88, 131, 166, 169, 180 – monastic life of 60, 93, 94 – oration on 91 – 94, 96, 98 – on papal primacy 159 – 160 – postil on 94 – 96 – as pure writer 57 – 58 – reading of Fathers 40 – resignation of service 92 – 93 – in Roman Catholic conflicts 144, 155 – scriptores puriores 57 – 58 – as student 121 – studies with Gregory Thaumaturgus 58 – 59 – studies with Gregory Nazianzen 17, 98 – teacher of apostolic doctrine 114 – 115 – travels 96 – on Trinity 87, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141 – works 73 – Works: – Asceticon 166 – De spiritu sancto 140 – Hexaemeron 97 – On the Holy Spirit 134, 138, 139 – On Humility 15, 144, 149, 150 – 151, 154, 180 – On Penance 149, 183, 207 – Rule 131 Bebel, Heinrich 72 Bede, Saint 159 Beneszewicz, Vladimir N. 83

Berengarius of Tours 187, 188 Bessarion, Basil 68, 69, 191 Biel, Gabriel 71 Billicanus, Theobald 71 bishops – abuse of power 156 – 157 – authority of 51, 55 – 56, 143, 159 – Cappadocian fathers as behavior models 161 – 162, 180 – condemnation of 160 – divine right of 157 – and episcopal oversight 160 – 161 – and Evangelical pastors 159, 211 – rules for governing 157 – 158 – secular authority of 157 Blarer, Ambrosius 72, 78 Bonaventure, Saint 20 Book of Concord 38, 214 Brenz, Johannes 71, 72, 77 Bucer, Martin – correspondence with Caspar Schwenkfeld 108 – debates with Melanchthon 195 – on Eucharist 195 – flees empire 164 – 165 – and Georg Witzel 170 – as Humanist 31, 108 – and Michael Servetus 123 – as reformer 71, 77 – at University of Heidelberg 71, 77 Bugenhagen, Johannes 164, 212 Busche, Hermann von dem 76 Caemmere, Richard 14 Calvin, John 116, 198 Camerarius, Joachim 33, 39, 163 Campanus, John 106, 108, 123, 131 Capito, Wolfgang 31, 32, 76, 108, 123, 191 Cappadocian Fathers – adherence to Church vocabulary 121 – as central authority 15 – 16 – chain of teachers 53, 58 – 60, 61, 109, 121, 139, 155 – 156 – classical education of 122 – exemplary theologians 122, 142, 144, 218

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

262 – – – – –

Index

freedom of the will 15 importance of 65 – 66, 100 influence of 15 – 16, 78 – 79, 103 – 104 in Loci communes 131 – 132 models of exemplary behavior 214 – 215 – as patristic sources 16 – as pure teachers 120 – 122 – as pure writers 15 – 16, 19, 20 – revival of 25, 56 – in Roman Catholic conflicts 144 – and Scholastic works 25 – Scriptores puriores 57 – 58 – service to the poor 180 – survival of works 68 – theology of 16 – 17 Carion, Johannes 42, 43 Carlowitz, Christoph von 33 Cassander, George 54, 169 Cassander, Jean 31 Celtis, Conrad 71 Charles IV 72 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 107, 123, 164 – 165 Christ – acts of God through 145 – authority through 159 – and baptism 134 – begotten from God 99, 127 – as central authority 52 – and consubstantiality 135 – desire to make known 16, 18, 20, 49, 86, 130, 217 – divinity of 125, 126 – and Eucharist 172, 184, 186 – 187, 188, 190 – 193, 190 – 194, 195 – and grace 101, 150, 168, 181 – and Holy Spirit 139 – incarnation of 46 – judgment of 90 – and justification 87 – 88, 94, 108, 150 – 155 – and Law-Gospel dialectic 19 – as logos 125 – love of 66 – and mass 172 – 176, 178

– mysteries of 84 – promises of 201 – redemption through 48, 49 – 50, 62 – return of 43 – and righteousness 204, 205 – as Son of God 99 – 100 – testimony of 56 – two natures of 124, 130, 132 – as ultimate authority 19, 90 Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel (Franck) 112 Chronicon Carionis (Melanchthon) 42 Chrysostom, Saint John – De magistratibus 84 – Divine Liturgy of 53, 170 – 172, 176, 177, 178 – 180, 181 – on Eucharist 193 – freedom of the will 202 – on grace 209 – Homily on Ephesians 177 – influence of 67 – mass as sacrifice 174 – pastoral oversight in Mass 173 – Peter’s confession of faith 159 Church – affirmation of creeds 109, 112 – 113 – authority of 86 – 87, 115, 136 – compared to Ark 113 – and essential doctrines 109 – exists through grace 108 – 109 – golden age of 54 – 55, 56 – Gospel restored to 116 – 117 – pure doctrine of 91 – relationship to God 116 – 117 – renewed through reform 112 – as school 121 – teachings of 127 – technical vocabulary of 63, 106, 121, 135, 137, 142, 181 – testimony of pure writers 109 – theological grammar 24, 44, 53, 61 – 65, 106, 132, 142 – unity with Academy 19, 20, 60, 105, 13 – 114 – voice of Gospel 143 Clement VII 70

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

263

Index

Confessio Saxonica (Melanchthon) 137 Confutation (to the Augsburg Confession) 173 – 175 consensus antiquitatis 14, 19, 24, 40, 53 – 56, 65 consubstantiality 59, 135, 137, 230 Contarini, Gasparo 31, 54, 116 Copia verborum ac rerum (Erasmus) 35 Corpus Reformatorum (Melanchthon) 16 Council at Constantinople 162 Council of Florence 68, 69 Council of Trent 163, 206, 210 Cranach, Lucas (the younger) 100, 102 – 103, 151, 209 creeds 62 – 63, 65, 108, 116, 122, 126 See also Nicene Creed Cruciger, Caspar 39, 164 Cyprian 159, 174, 193 Cyril, Saint 193 Dahlberg, Johann von 71 De anima (Gregory of Nyssa) 96 De Basilio Episcopo (Melanchthon) 91 – 94 De corpore et sanguine Domini (Ratramnus) 186 – 188 De corrigendis adulescentiae studiis (Melanchthon) 79 De ecclesia et de autoritate verbi Dei (Melanchthon) 56, 86 – 87, 176 De magistratibus (Chrysostom) 84 De natura hominis (Gregory of Nyssa) 122 De Spiritu et Littera (Augustine) 62 De spiritu sancto (Basil) 140 De Trinitate (Augustine) 146 De trinitatis erroribus (Servetus) 123 De viribus illustribus (Jerome) 74 Dialectic (Melanchthon) 79 Dialogorum de Trinitate and Iustitia Regni Christi (Servetus) 123 Dialogus Mythologicus (Bartholomew of Cologne) 78 Diet of Augsburg 162 Dietrich, Veit 176 Dionysius Exiguus 67

Disputation Concerning Justification (Luther) 148 Dreschel, Thomas 109 Duns Scotus 25, 78 Eber, Paul 215 Ebner, Georg 83 Eck, Johannes 82, 162 Enarratio libri II (Melanchthon) 207 Engberding, Hieronymus 170 Epiphanius of Salamis 59, 138, 159, 160 episcopal office 58, 114, 144, 155, 156, 160, 180 Erasmianism 28, 205 Erasmus – Adages 217 – Adagia 35 – and Basil’s edition 101, 134 – comparisons to 14, 28 – Copia verborum ac rerum 35 – creation of Christian philosophy 20 – criticism of 48, 49 – freedom of the will 30 – 31, 36, 49, 197 – idealism of 118 – and Melanchthon 34, 35 – 36, 78, 119, 213 – and Oecolampadius 78 – praised as philologist 34 – relationship with Luther 30 – 31 – representative of Humanism 30, 31 – 32, 33, 39 – translation of Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom 170 – 171 Erb, Matthias 76 Eriugena, John Scotus 67 Ethicorum Aristoteles (Melanchthon) 207 Eucharist – absence of patristic sources 186 – and Augustine 184, 187 – and Byzantine worship 179 – Christ’s presence in 183, 190 – 191, 195, 196 – 197, 217 – disputes over 163 – Greek patristic testimony 192 – 195 – intra-Lutheran debates 183, 184 – and justification 190

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

264

Index

– – – –

liturgies as testimony 169 – 172, 217 Lutheran affirmations 192 memorial of Last Supper 191 Paschasius and Ratramnus debate 186 – 187 – as thanksgiving 172, 176, 181, 185 – transubstantiation 36, 187 – 188, 189, 190, 191 – treatise on 186 – 187 – vocabulary of 188 Eugene IV, Pope 68 Eusebius 108, 112, 136, 138 Evangelical reform Examen Ordinandorum (Melanchthon) 137 Fabricius, Georg 163 Feast of the Purification 94, 95 Ficino, Marcillio 72 First Theological Oration (Gregory Nazianzen) 82, 84 Five Theological Orations (Gregory Nazianzen) 82 – 83, 89, 99, 127, 138 Flacius, Matthias 14, 165, 184, 209, 211 – 212, 213, 216 forgiveness 184, 215 – 217, 218 Formula of Concord 195, 196, 209, 213 – 214 Fraenkel, Peter 15, 16, 41, 42, 46, 47, 56, 62, 83, 84, 87, 90, 114, 142 Franck, Sebastian 112 Frederick III, Elector 71, 72 – 73 freedom of the will – Cappadocian Fathers 15 – Chrysostom on 202 – Erasmus on 30 – 31, 36, 49, 197 – Gregory of Nazianzen on 185 – intra-Lutheran conflict 163, 183, 197 – 198 – Luther on 30 – 31, 36, 38, 49, 184 – 185, 197 – Melanchthon on 36, 38, 49, 184 – 185, 198 – 206, 217 – 218 Gallus, Nicholas 212 Gaza, Theodore 68, 69

Geiselmann, Josef 187 George of Anhal 160 – 161 Gerson, Jean 28 Glossa ordinaria 25, 141 grace – and Augsburg Interim 209 – 214 – Augustine on 145 – 146, 149, 153, 184, 202, 208, 209 – Basil on 101, 102, 103, 104, 149 – 150, 180, 202, 207 – 208, 209, 217 – and Christ 101, 150, 168, 181 – Chrysostom on 209 – Gregory Nazianzen on 183 – and mass 175 – Melanchthon on 103, 147, 152 – 155, 173, 180, 204 – 205, 206, 207 – 208, 2010 – 211, 213 – and Scholastics 154 Grane, Leif 29 Gregory Nazianzen Saint, 13 – affirms Nicene Creed 99 – against Arian and Semi-Arians 17 – on baptism 99 – and Basil 17, 98 – biographical information 97 – 98 – as bishop 98 – 99 – as Cappadocians 16 – compares Church to Ark 113 – contributions to doctrine 99 – 100 – on councils 161 – 164 – criticism of 87, 90 – education 17, 98 – eloquence of 121 – on Eucharist 193, 196 – First Theological Oration 82, 84 – Five Theological Orations 82 – 83, 89, 99, 127, 138 – on forgiveness 184, 215 – 217, 218 – freedom of the will 185, 217 – 218 – on grace 183, 208 – 209, 209 – on Holy Spirit 140, 141 – influence of 13 – and invocation of saints 89 – 90 – in Loci communes 131, 132, 138 – as mentor 180 – as model student 121

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

265

Index

– – – – – – –

and Nicene theology 17 Oration 45, 93, 95, 96 oration on 97 – 100 ordination of 98 Paschal Sermon 82 poetry of 15 quotation in Cranch painting 102 – 103 – refusal to take episcopal see 17 – in Roman Catholic conflicts 144 – Scriptores puriores 57 – as teacher 114 – 115 – on Trinity 127 – works by 73 Gregory of Nyssa, Saint 13 – as Cappadocians 16 – concern for unlearned and semi-learned 85 – criticism of 89 – 90 – De anima 96 – De natura hominis 122 – doctrine of the Trinity 89 – education of 17 – knowledge of natural philosophy 121 – 122 – known as normative bishop 17 – memory of 100 – work attributed to Basil 17 – works by 73 Gregory Thaumaturgus 13 – against anti-Trinitarians 106, 125 – 127, 135 – 137 – as Apostle to Cappadocia 17 – as Cappadocians 16 – chain of teachers 58 – 60, 139 – converted Macrina the Elder 17, 59 – influence on Basil 92 – in Loci communes 131 – 132 – missionary work 96 – Scriptores puriores 57 – teacher of apostolic doctrine 114 – 115 – translations of 84 – on Trinity 139 – works of 74 Gregory the Great 54 Gropper, Johannes 31, 54

Grosseteste, Robert 28 Grossman, Maria 34, 74 Grynaeus, Simon 72, 76 Guitmund of Aversa 187 Harnack, Adolf von 14 Hedio, Caspar 76 Hermann von Wied 169 Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere (Melanchthon) 137 – 138, 198 Hexaemeron (Basil) 97 Heynlin von Stein, Johannes 71 Hilary of Poitiers, Saint 159, 174, 193 Holbein, Hans 29 Holy Spirit – anti-Trinitarians view of 123 – authority through 110 – Basil on 197 – at creation 141 – distinction of 133 – 134 – as distinct person 123, 130, 133 – 135, 137 – divinity of 17, 139 – 140 – gifts of 111 – Gregory Nazianzen on 99 – inspiration from 106, 110, 115, 117 – invocation of 91 – manifestation of power of God 123 – regeneration through 200, 201 – as spirit of God 141 – through baptism 139 – 140 – working through 205, 206, 208, 213 Homily on Ephesians (Chrysostom) 177 Humanism – approach to patristic texts 26 – distinction from Scholastism 26 – 27, 69 – and Eberhard VI 71 – in German universities 70 – 75 – and Melanchthon 14, 20, 32, 34, 37, 39 – principles of 29 – proper compared to biblical 29 – 30 – and Reformation 21, 28 – 32, 65 – relationship with Reformation 21 Humanists

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

266

Index

– barred from higher faculties in universities 28 – concern for bonae litterae 26, 30 – defined as 30 – division between Reformers 31 – 32 – generational differences among 32 – Italian Humanists 68 – linguistic studies and grammar 61 – and Luther 29, 30, 31 – Melanchthon contributions to 31, 32, 39 – methodologies of 24, 26, 27 – and Scholastics 24, 25 – 28 – students of 76 – support of papacy 31 – third generation of 75 – use of classical and patristic sources 24, 188 – value of Bible 24 See also Erasmus Irenaeus, Saint – establishes schools in Church 92 – on Eucharist 177, 193 – guardian of doctrine 137 – influence on Michael Servetus 108, 136 – on mass 176, 178 – praise for 96 Jerome, Saint – De viribus illustribus 74 – and Epiphanius 59 – Law and Gospel distinction 48 – mass as sacrifice 174 – Melanchthon criticism of 20 – on papal primacy 159 – and Spirit of God 141 John Frederick of Saxony 164 Jonas, Justus 216 justification – affirmation of 144, 209 – 210 – Augsburg Confession 210 – Augustine on 145 – 146 – authority of 52

– Basil on 87, 88, 93, 97, 144, 148 – 149, 150 – 155, 180 – distinction between Law and Gospel 19, 48 – and Eucharist 190 – as Gospel 50 – 51 – Melanchthon on 16, 47, 50, 144, 148, 150 – 155, 190, 204, 205 – 206, 213 – and salvation 46 – through Christ 19, 87, 97 – through faith 88, 97 Karlstadt, Andreas 14, 107 – 108, 110, 147, 193 Kristeller, Paul Oskar 26, 27, 30, 34 Lanfranc 187 Lang, Johannes 74, 215 Law – distinct from Gospel 18 – 20, 47 – 51, 202 Lechner, Jacob 91, 97, 100 Leipzig Debate 35, 65, 162 Lemp, Jakob 77 – 78 Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini (Radbertus) 187 Loci communes (Melanchthon) 80, 85 – 86, 106, 128, 201 Loci communes (1521) (Melanchthon) 37, 130 – 131, 152 – 155, 197 – 198, 199 Loci communes (1535) (Melanchthon) 131, 132 – 134, 207 Loci communes (1543) (Melanchthon) 50, 105, 131, 135 – 137, 141, 143, 198 – 206, 208 Loci communes (1553) (Melanchthon) 131, 137 – 138, 216 logos – assumed human nature 127 – as Christ 125 – pre-existence of 126 – as son 126 – as Speech 125 – as speech 123, 132 – and Trinity 135 – as Word 124, 125, 132, 137

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

267

Index

Lohse, Bernhard 147 Lombard, Peter 25, 78, 80, 188 Lotter, Melchior 83 Löwenstein, Friedrich von 77 Löwenstein, Ludwig von 77 de Lubac, Henri 15 Lucas Cranach the Younger 13 Luther, Katherine 39 Luther, Martin – absence from Diet of Worms 79 – affirms carnal manducation 190 – and Augustine writings 146 – 148 – death of 32 – 33, 39, 195 – Disputation Concerning Justification 148 – and Erasmus 30 – 31, 30 – 32, 36 – and Eucharist 191 – 192, 195, 196 – freedom of the will 30 – 31, 36, 197 – Gospel and philosophy distinction 18, 19 – grammar for theologians 61 – and Greek Fathers 65 – and Greek language 74 – and Heidelberg Disputation 71 – and Humanists 29 – 32 – illness of 160 – and Leipzig Debate 65 – loyalty to 14 – as Lutheranism 39 – mass at Wittenberg 189 – meets Zwickau Prophets 110 – Operationes in Psalmos 61 – opponents of 76 – and Pauline theology 145 – and Radical Reformers 107 – receives Augustinian Friars house 166 – relationship with Melanchthon 14, 28, 33, 34, 36 – 39 – representative of Protestantism 30 – 32 – study of patristic sources 116, 145, 146 – 147 – teaching responsibilities 37 – 38, 81 – temperament of 33 – theological contributions 39 – and Wittenberg Concord 195

Lutheranism 15, 28, 38, 39, 47, 52, 102, 106, 129, 166, 185, 194 Macrina the Elder 17, 59 Major, Georg 164, 212 – 213 Manichees 95, 97, 128, 207 Manicheism 98, 197 Manschreck, Clyde 14, 34, 36, 48, 194 Manutius, Aldus 68, 69 – 70, 73 Markschalk, Nicholaus 74 mass – conferring of grace 175 – criticisms of 172 – 173 – Evangelical celebration of 173 – 174 – expanded vocabulary of 175, 181 – pastoral oversight of 173 – purpose of 173 – sacrament defined as 110 – 111 – as sacrifice 15, 144, 174, 177, 178 – 179, 180 – 181, 181, 185, 190 – testimonies of 173 – 174, 175 – 176 Matthias, Thomas 163 Mauer, Wilhelm 14, 34, 48 Maximus the Cynic 99 Meijering, E. P. 14, 48, 57, 84, 85, 139, 151, 207 Melanchthon, Philip – and Anabaptists 110 – 113, 128 – and anti-Trinitarians 17, 122 – 129, 125 – 128, 131 – Apology to Confutation 166, 175 – 176 – approach to theology 108, 129 – argumentation of 128 – arrival in Wittenberg 37 – and Augsburg Interim 210 – 211, 213 – bans Franck 112 – on baptism 110, 111, 140, 190 – and biblical testimony 124 – 125 – biography of 33 – 34 – on bishops 156 – 158 – and Byzantine worship 179 – and Cappadocian Fathers 15 – 16, 17 – 18, 66 – celebrates Evangelical Mass at Wittenberg 189 – citation of Basil on grace 102

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

268

Index

– closes monasteries 165 – 166 – coat of arms 18 – confrontation with Charles V 164 – 165 – on councils 161 – 164 – credibility of 14 – debates with Zwickau prophets 108, 109 – 113 – defense of philosophy 119 – 120 – and Donatism 107 – and ecclesiastical tradition 45 – 47 – education of 17, 24, 71 – 72, 75 – 76, 77 – 79, 79 – 81 – elected Rector of the University 80 – 81 – and Erasmus 14, 34, 35 – 36, 48, 213 – on Eucharist 177, 183, 185 – 186, 190, 191, 192 – 195, 195 – 197 – evaluation of patristic manuscripts 73 – familiarity with patristic authors 78 – 79 – on forgiveness 215 – 218 – on freedom of the will 36, 38, 49, 183, 184 – 185, 185, 197 – 198, 217 – 218 – on grace 103, 147, 152 – 155, 173, 180, 204 – 205, 206, 207 – 209, 210 – 211, 213 – and Greek canon 175, 176, 177 – 178 – and Gregory Nazianzen’s poetry 15 – between Humanism and Protestantism 28, 32 – 34 – as Humanist 31, 32, 39 – images of/portrayals of 34 – influence of 143 – on invocation of saints 89 – 90 – on justification 148, 150 – 155, 190, 204, 205 – 206, 213 – lectures on patristic texts 82 – 86 – letters from 33 – 34 – and Liturgy of St. Basil 172, 175, 176, 177, 181 – and Liturgy of St. Chrysostom 170 – 172, 176, 177, 178, 181 – loci method 78, 128, 129 – 130 – and Luther 14, 34, 36 – 39, 183 – 184 – on mass 172 – 174, 175 – 179, 180 – 181, 189

– on monasticism 166 – 169, 180 – non-academic audience writings 137 – 138 – opens schools 119 – 120 – opposition to historicism 41, 48, 90 – on papal authority 115 – and patristic authority 23 – 24, 39 – 41, 65 – as patristic scholar 14 – 15, 84 – 85, 90, 103 – 104 – and Pauline theology 145 – poetry of 78, 101 – portraits of 13 – 14, 100 – 102, 102 – 103, 104, 151, 209 – postil on Basil 94 – 97 – professor of Greek and Rhetoric 74, 79 – 81 – on radicalism 113 – 118 – and Radical Reformers 105 – 106, 107, 142 – reputation of 14 – 15 – rhetorical devices of 128 – teaching responsibilities of 37 – 38, 81 – as text editor 78 – on transubstantiation 189, 190 – on Trinity 99 – 100, 129 – 130, 132 – 137, 138 – and University of Heidelberg 70, 77 – and University of Tübingen 17, 71 – 72, 77 – 78 – and University of Wittenberg 37, 70, 79 – 81 – view of history 41 – 45 – and Wittenberg Concord 195 – Works: – Adversus anabaptistas iudicium 105, 110 – 111 – Annotations on Some Obscure Chapters of Genesis 141 – Book of Concord 38, 214 – Chronicon Carionis 42 – Confessio Saxonica 137 – Corpus Reformatorum 16 – De Basilio Episcopo 91 – 94 – De corrigendis adulescentiae studiis 79

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

269

Index

– De ecclesia et de autoritate verbi Dei 56, 86 – 87, 176 – Dialectic 79 – Enarratio libri II 207 – Ethicorum Aristoteles 207 – Examen Ordinandorum 137 – Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere 137 – 138, 198 – Loci communes, 80, 85 – 86, 106, 128, 201 – Loci communes (1521) 37, 130 – 131, 152 – 155, 197 – 198, 199 – Loci communes (1535) 131, 132 – 134, 207 – Loci communes (1543) 50, 105, 131, 135 – 137, 141, 143, 198 – 206, 208 – Loci communes (1553) 131, 137 – 138, 216 – Melanchthons Briefwechsel 16 – On the Merit of Theological Studies 113 – 114 – On Natural Philosophy 119 – On Philosophy 119 – Refutatio erroris Serveti et Anabaptistarum 111 – 112, 124 – Rhetoric 79 – Rudiments of the Greek Language 78 – Sententiae veterum 192 – 193, 195, 196 – Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 158, 213 Melanchthons Briefwechsel (Melanchthon) 16 monasticism 15, 88, 90, 144, 165 – 169, 180 Mosellanus, Peter 74, 76, 80, 82 Müntzer, Thomas 108, 109, 111, 112 Musurus, Marcus 68, 69 – 70 Nauclerus, Johannes 41 Nectarius of Tarsus 99 Neunheuser, Burkhard 187 Nicene Creed 63, 80, 97, 99, 130, 140, 191 Nicholas V, Pope 68, 69

Nuremberg Chronicle (Schedel)

112

Oberman, Heiko A. 27 Occam 36, 77, 78 Oecolampadius, Johannes – and Eucharist 183, 190, 195 – friendship with Melanchthon 78, 83, 162 – humanistically-trained 31 – and Michael Servetus 123 On Humility (Basil) 13, 144, 149, 150 – 151, 154, 180 On Natural Philosophy (Melanchthon) 119 On Penance (Basil) 149, 183, 207 On Philosophy (Melanchthon) 119 On the Holy Spirit (Basil) 134, 138, 139 On the Merit of Theological Studies (Melanchthon) 113 – 114 On the Spirit and the Letter (Augustine) 148 On the Trinity (Augustine) 133 Operationes in Psalmos (Luther) 61 Oration 43 (Gregory Nazianzen) 93, 95, 96 Origen of Alexandria – on Eucharist 193 – idealization of 108 – influence of 67 – on justification 148 – Law-Gospel distinction 19, 48 – legacy of 15 – mass as sacrifice 174 – Melanchthon criticism of 20 – papal primacy 159 – Philocalia 93 – translations of 84 – works in Wittenberg library 74 original sin 111, 145, 146, 148, 173 Osiander, Andreas 216 Overfield, James H. 27 papacy – abandoned by God 116 – authority of 18, 115, 144 – criticisms of 180

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

270

Index

– distinct from Catholic 52 – power of 158 – 160 – and Second Great Schism 70 – support of Humanists 31 patristic testimony – ambiguity of 136 – in catholic tradition 56, 125 – 128, 138 – consistency of 136 – criteria for 45 – 46 – criticisms of 56, 90 – and Eucharist 169, 217 – Melanchthon’s use of 15, 56, 144 – misreading of 175 – presence of Christ 192 – 193, 196 – reading of Scripture 142 – standards of 40 – 41, 46 – in theological reflection 56 – understanding of 45 Paul, Saint 50, 80, 157, 200, 203 Paul III, Pope 159 Paul of Samosata 58, 92, 124, 131, 132, 135 – 136 Pelikan, Jaroslav 14 Peter, Saint 115, 143, 159 Pezel, Christoph 94 Pflug, Julius von 54 Philip of Hesse 164, 192 Philocalia (Origen) 93 Pirckheimer, Caritas 166 Pirkheimer, Willibald 32, 83 Prenninger, Martin 72 Preus, J. A. O. 14 Quere, Ralph 190 Quintana, Juan de 192 Radbertus Paschasius 186 Radical Reformation (Williams) 106 Radical Reformers – Church abandoned by God 43 – corrupts purity of Gospel 113, 142 – criticisms of 111 – groups of 106 – 107 – guided by patristic sources 113 – 114, 116 – as heretics 119

– self-educated 107, 108 – study of patristic sources 116 – threatens traditional doctrines 86, 142, 156 – training of 107 See also Anabaptists; anti-Trinitarians; Zwickau prophets Ratramnus 188 – De corpore et sanguine Domini 186 – 187 Refutatio erroris Serveti et Anabaptistarum (Melanchthon) 111 – 112, 124 Reuchlin, Johannes 35, 36, 41, 42, 72, 75 – 76, 77 Reuter, Elizabeth 75 Reuter, Johannes 75 Rhetoric (Melanchthon) 79 Ritschl, Albrecht 14 Rudiments of the Greek Language (Melanchthon) 78 Rufinus of Aquileia 67, 227 – 228 Rule (Basil) 131 Rummel, Erika 26 – 27, 31, 32, 34, 75 Sacramentarians 106 sacrifice of the mass 15, 144, 174, 177, 178 – 179, 180 – 181, 181, 185, 190 Sadoleto, Jacopo 31, 54 saints, invocation of 89 – 90, 172 Samosatians 97 Scheible, Heinz 15, 16, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 80 Schneider, John 45 Scholasticism – criticisms of 20, 71, 146, 147 – dialectics-based 25 – dismissed by Melanchthon 20 – domination of 25 – relation to Humanism 26 – 27 – transubstantiation 188 – use of Bible 24 Scholastics – conflict with Humanists 24, 25 – 28 – criticisms of 86, 148, 153, 154 – debates with Melanchthon 184 – dialectical framework of 24, 26, 27

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

271

Index

– – – – – – – –

distinction from Humanists 26 – 27 edit patristic sources 26 and grace 154 on incarnation 86, 130 methodologies of 24, 27 patronage of Pope Nicholas V 69 revival of studia humanitatis 27 – 28 use of classical and patristic sources 24 Scholl, Eugen 149 Schwartzerdt, Barbara 75 Schwartzerdt, Georg 75 Schwenkfeld, Caspar 108 scriptores puriores, 19, 20, 24, 53, 57, 104, 116, 125, 148 Scriptores puriores 19, 20, 24, 53, 57 – 58, 104, 116, 125, 148 Second Great Schism 70 Sentences (Lombard) 80 Sententiae veterum (Melanchthon) 192 – 193, 195, 196 serpent 18 Servetus, Michael – and Anabaptist movement 111 – 112 – anti-Trinitarian theology 108, 123, 124, 134 – assistant to Juan de Quintana 123 – debates against Melanchthon 85, 106, 108, 111, 112, 124, 127, 135 – 136, 138 – De trinitatis erroribus 123 – Dialogorum de Trinitate and Iustitia Regni Christi 123 – equated with Paul of Samosata 124, 131 – 132, 135 – 136 – ideas compared to Islam 124 – influence of Tertullian and Irenaeus 55, 108, 136, 138 – and logos as speech 125 – rejection of Trinity 123 – vocabulary of Church 106 Simler, Georg 72, 75, 76, 77 sola scriptura 47, 65, 140 Sozzini, Lelio 108 Spalatin, Georg 73, 83, 160 Spangel, Pallus 77 Spiritualists 106

Spitz, Lewis 26 Städel Museum 13 Stancarus, Francisco 108, 123 Staupitz, Johann 82 Steinbach, Wendelin 71, 78 Stöffler, Johannes 42, 72, 77 Stoics 19, 101, 119, 209 Storch, Nickolaus 109 Stübner, Marcus 109 studia humanitatis 27 – 28 Stupperich, Robert 34 Sturm, Jacob 77 Sturm, Peter 77 Summenhart, Conrad 71 – 72 Tertullian 55, 108, 125, 136, 138 Theodosius II 107 theological grammar 24, 44, 53, 61 – 65, 106, 132, 142 Theophylact 193 transubstantiation 36, 187 – 188, 189, 190, 191 Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (Melanchthon) 158, 213 Trebizond, George 68 – 69, 193 Trinity – and baptism 134, 135 – Basil on 87, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141 – and Christ 45, 63 – Gregory Nazianzen on 127 – Gregory of Nyssa on 89 – Gregory Thaumaturgus on 139 – lack of testimony about 58 – and logos 135 – Melanchthon on 99 – 100, 129 – 130, 132 – 137, 138 – mysteries of 86 – patristic authority of 64 – rejection of 123 Turstenius, Johann 91 Typus Ecclesiae Prioris (Witzel) 53, 170 University of Heidelberg 70 – 71, 77 University of Leipzig 72, 74 University of Paris 70 University of Tübingen 17, 71 – 72, 77 – 78

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671

272

Index

University of Wittenberg 164, 212 Urban VI 70

72 – 75, 148,

Valens (Roman Emperor) 93, 96, 164, 165 Vergenhans, Johannes 71 Weidenhofer, Siegfried 34 Weigand, Johann 212 Weller, Hieronymus 215 Wenck von Herrenberg, Johann 71 Wengert, Timothy J. 15, 16, 30, 31 – 32, 34, 35 Wessel, John 36, 77 Wied, Hermann von 54

Williams, George H. 106 Wimpfeling, Jacob 71, 77 Wittenberg Concord 195 Witzel, Georg – publication of Liturgy of St. Basil 171, 176, 177 – Reform Catholic movement 40, 53, 54, 56, 87 – Typus Ecclesiae Prioris 53, 170 Xim¦nez, Cardinal

31

Zwickau prophets 108, 109 – 113 Zwingli, Huldrych 31, 116, 190

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550670 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550671