Religious Freedom.
[by J. C. W. Lindemann] (cont'd from Part 8)
His son Frederick IV (1583-1610) was Reformed again. Even before he himself could take up the government, all Lutheran preachers and professors were forcibly removed from their offices by the administrator Johann Casimir. At first he had intended to tolerate both confessions side by side, but soon he decided that the Lutherans should give way completely. In the Upper Palatinate, Dr. Jakob Heilbrunner, Superintendent in Amberg, was forcibly expelled, although his congregation protested against it and was ready to protect him. Even the provincial estates took up his cause and said outright: "They only wanted to do away with Heilbrunner so that the Calvinist flock would easily gain the upper hand.”
The princely Commissarius Dr. Räuber, who had to carry out the removal of the Superintendent, assured "with many graceful words": "His most gracious Lord has found no lack of person, doctrine, and used diligence in the performance of the office with Dr. Heilbrunner, even praises his modesty used before others; but the pulpit on which he preaches is without the means (that is, direct) of his princely Graces responsible and I want to appoint them with their religious relatives". Men like Heilbrunner were thus driven from office by Reformed princes only for the sake of their Lutheran faith, and a Reformed preacher was then forced upon the Lutheran congregations. — What a terrible tyranny to want to force a conscience to be Lutheran or Reformed, since the two religions are so different! —
The whole of Hesse had also accepted Luther's teaching. The famous Landgrave Philip (1509-67), however, leaned toward the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper and favored its spread. He also abolished only the grossest abuses of the old church, and in general had in mind only external things (e.g., the removal of images from the churches). But, he wanted to be a "Lutheran" and confessed the Augsburg Confession.
His son William (1567-92) leaned even more decisively toward Calvinism. Already in 1582 he abolished Latin Vespers and exorcism. Two years later he also forbade the wearing of choir robes and the singing of the words of institution during the administration of Holy Communion. Quite publicly he denied the omnipresence of the Body of Christ, claiming that this doctrine led to finally having to reject the true humanity of Christ. In his falsely called reform efforts he found little opposition in Lower Hesse, but more so in Upper Hesse and in Schmalkalden.
Landgrave Maurice [or Moritz; DE] (1592-1627) went even further. He considered himself, as he claimed, "bound in his conscience" to work against the diversity in the "church customs" (!), because these, as he claimed, disturbed the devotion and aroused doubts in conscience about the "meaning of the sacraments". As early as 1603 he issued a rather "reformed" and spiteful exhortation to the preachers at Schmalkalden: "Ceremonies which, for the sake of conscience, one could not consider indifferent, such as the adoration of the host, the making of the cross in front of the forehead, various blessings for the Lord's Supper, the bending of the knees of the communicants, the holding of a cloth, 6) pictures which were to represent God, the Trinity, Christ and the saints, the ringing with bells for the singing of the faith in the choir, Latin, unusual chants, the choral recitation of prayers and evangelical texts, to direct the hearts more to faith and divine things than to such outward customs, and on the other hand to introduce with modesty simple customs based on God's Word and the breaking of bread as a ceremony used by the founder of Holy Communion, without regard to human gossip".
6) At the reception of the Sacrament, in many places a little cloth was held out to the communicants. The papists wanted to prevent a crumb of the consecrated host, the body of Christ, from falling to the ground. In Protestant churches, too, this custom was retained here and there, partly out of habit and partly to show respect for the sacrament.
This "exhortation" was proclaimed from the pulpits in Schmalkalden, but met with the strongest opposition from preachers and congregations. Moritz, who formally converted to the Reformed Church in 1605, now appointed a mixed commission of court and state officials of secular and ecclesiastical status and submitted to it various questions concerning the ecclesiastical "improvement" to be made. The answer was as he wished. He was told: "Reluctant preachers would appear unworthy of their office and would be abandoned by their own congregations. He now came himself to Schmalkalden and had the introduction of his supposed improvements repeatedly proclaimed in his presence on September 25, 1605; but even now no one was willing to accept them.
Already before (on June 15, 1605) Moritz had presented his so-called "Improvement Points" to his theologians at Marburg for acceptance. In the same he demanded of the professors that they should:
"1. speak of the high mystery of the person of Christ and of the communion of the attributes of both natures in Christ with the Holy Scriptures alone and keep silent and abstain from new phrases and sayings in abstracto; 7)
7) By the "new phrases and sayings" the Landgrave understood the words quite correctly chosen by the Lutheran teachers, by which they denoted, e. g., the union of the two natures in Christ, the omnipresence of His humanity etc. These words (e. g., "sharing of attributes," "omnipresence of Christ according to human nature," "sacramental union") are not in the Bible, but the thing signified by them is. The Landgrave had those words because he did not believe the divine truth expressed by them.
2. teach the Ten Commandments of God as they are found in the Bible, without omitting the second commandment, and consequently abolish those images which, being used for idolatry [Page 24] in popery, might cause offence and annoyance; 8)
8) The divine prohibition against making images in order to worship them (Ex. 20:4-5), which according to old church custom we count as the first commandment and usually omit completely in our catechism, is the second commandment for the Reformed, which they erroneously interpret to mean that according to God's will one may not have any images in the churches.
3. administer Holy Communion, as with common wine, so with common nourishing bread, and with the ceremony of breaking bread, as Christ kept it the night he was betrayed." 9)
9) If the foolish Landgrave wanted to command what Christ "kept," he should also have decreed that his Hessians must go to Jerusalem and partake of the Lord's Supper in the same vaulted hall and at the same time! — It is not a question of doing what Christ "kept," but of doing what he commanded at the institution of the sacrament. But the spirit of the spirit of enthusiasts must pervert everything. —
But in Marburg, these falsely called "Improvement Points" not only met with resistance, but even aroused an alarming uproar. When this was quieted, a general synod was summoned to Cassel in order to give the "Improvements" general validity. On this occasion, the blinded Landgrave declared that he could not approve of such "frightening rebellion of every Christian man against the clear content and letter of the Holy Scriptures, according to the calling received from God," and that, although he did not mean to disturb anyone in his conscience, "knowing well that no religion can and should be commanded," it was nevertheless his duty "by virtue of his high episcopal office" to order the churches in matters concerning doctrine and ceremonies "as God requires in His Word.” 10)
10) Here the Landgrave is really enthusiastically boasting, as if he only desired "what God required in His Word", and as if he was not willing to "disturb anyone in his conscience"; but the opposite is the truth. God had not given him a "bishop's office", indeed, had forbidden him to "take hold of a foreign office"; his "points of improvement" contained only false assertions and distortions, and his whole approach was a tyrannical one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Continued in Part 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The Reformed make the practice of "breaking bread" a command, but Jesus did not command this practice. Lutherans follow what was commanded by Jesus in His Word, and so therefore will not follow the commandment of the Reformed of "breaking bread". — In the next Part 10…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.