C. F. W. Walther was always ready to promote good Lutheran books to his people. And so his emphatic recommendation of the following book, by an author unknown to me and with a somewhat odd name, caught my eye, and oh! I had to dig deeper into the story of the author, the book itself, and the great effect it had for Lutheranism in his day when the Reformation was undergoing great stress from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1600s, also in the 1700s. (Although I have already posted a blog 2 years ago on a portion of this, I am now publishing the full text.)
.jpg "Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg (Lucas Kilian, portraitindex.de)")
in which it is irrefutably proven from several passages of Holy Scripture how the so-called Lutheran faith is truly catholic, but the papal doctrine is fundamentally erroneous and contrary to the bright Word of God. By Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg [Wikipedia, ADB, PRDL]. Dresden by Heinrich Naumann. 1870.
The author of this little book, born in Vienna, died as chief court preacher in Dresden in 1645, was a theologian who was as learned as he was godly and spiritual. Proof of this is his Evangelical Handbook. It is undoubtedly the most thorough and beautiful of the short writings on the refutation of papism that are comprehensible to everyone. While it proves everything irrefutably from God's Word, it also gives the most convincing evidence for this from the Church Fathers, not only in Latin, but also always in German translation. The booklet has the particular advantage that it is written with great enthusiasm for the faith, not in a stiff, scholarly style, but in a highly lively, popular style. Since 1603, when it was first published, it has been a favorite book of the people in Germany for two hundred years and has therefore often been reprinted. For a long time, the papists did not dare to attempt a refutation of this little book, which was so unassailably entrenched in God's Word.
Finally, the famous Jesuit Dr. Jakob Reihing set about against it and wrote his [Catholic] Handbook. But what happened? When this Jesuit was urged to refute the scriptural evidence given in the handbook [of Hoe] and to substantiate his own assertions with Scripture, the light finally dawned on him by the grace of God, he converted, became a Lutheran, revoked his own supposed refutation of the Handbook [see his explicit retraction on p. 17] and showed of himself what fallacies he had made. In 1628 he finally died as a Lutheran professor and superintendent in Tübingen, blessed and calm in his faith in his one Mediator. So, dear reader, if you want an armor for yourself against the papacy that always has victorious weapons against it – you have them in the "Handbook".
It is a booklet of 157 pages, and is to be had from our agent, Mr. M. C. Barthel, Corner of 7th & Lafayette Streets, St. Louis, Mo. well bound for 60 Cts. It would be very desirable that this delightful little book should be translated into English, and thus made accessible to Lutherans who only understand English. W. [Walther]
.jpg)
[ADB article on Hoe von Hoenegg]
Hoë: Matthias Hoë von Hoënegg, theologian, was the youngest of three sons of Dr. Leonh. Hoë, who was born in Franconia, came to Vienna and gradually rose from advocacy to professorship and deanship in the Faculty of Law, finally, although he was a Protestant [see this for explanation], was ennobled by Emperor Rudolf II in 1592 with the additional title of Hoënegg, appointed an Imperial Court Councillor in 1596 and died on March 4, 1599. His mother was Helena v. Wollzogen, daughter of the Lower Austrian Hofkammerrath v. Wollzogen. — Matthias v. Hoë was born in Vienna in 1580. Of delicate health and frail physique, he only began his studies at the Cathedral School of St. Stephen in Vienna at the age of 7, but later developed all the more quickly due to his good disposition and easy grasp. At the age of 14 he was sent to the grammar school in Steyer in Austria, where the Austrian nobility preferred to have their sons educated at the time. If he had thus escaped the solicitations of the Catholics for his conversion, he was now caught up in the battle between his Flacian tutor and a Calvinist teacher, the outcome of which frightened his Lutheran father until his son left for university. This appears to have taken place in 1597. At first Hoë attended lectures in Vienna; then his parents, recognizing his particular inclination towards theology, decided to send him to the stronghold of the Evangelical Church and pure Lutheranism, Wittenberg. Highly recommended by the Saxon envoy in Vienna, he arrived in Wittenberg on July 15, 1597 and was enrolled the following day. He was warmly received in the professorial circles, as Hoë himself praises, and the excellent diligence with which he first studied philosophy, then theology and jurisprudence in equal measure, led one to expect the best from him in each of these sciences. But he remained faithful to theology. Admitted to the licentiate in 1601, he lectured and preached diligently. After passing his theological examinations, he was appointed third court preacher in Dresden on February 24, 1602 by Elector Christian II, to whom he had recommended himself in a congratulatory letter on his accession to the throne in September 1601. Despite his short time in office, he was able to win the favor of the Elector and the court to such an extent that he threatened to outdo his older ministers Polykarp Leyser and Blate [Brecher assumes a rivalry]. Fortunately for both, the vacancy of the superintendency in Plauen offered the opportunity to remove his dangerous rival [?!] there. On January 1, 1604, he took up his new post and on March 6 of that year he was awarded a doctorate in theology by Leonh. Hutter in Wittenberg. The Elector had supported him with 200 guilders for the expenses for this, as he had also shown him his favor during his stay in Dresden in the most generous way with money and other gifts. – Hoë's effectiveness in Plauen seems to have been a blessed one. He possessed the ability to [542] win people over. He succeeded in doing this all the more easily with the citizens of Plauen, the more he had actually rendered service to his congregation in difficult times of need and at the same time had turned down a number of advantageous callings for their love. However, he believed he had to accept the call of the German Evangelical congregation in Prague, because higher political considerations came into play. He took up his new office in May 1611. He thus took over the management of the entire church and school system of that parish as "director" for an indefinite period, as he was only on leave of absence from the Elector, so to speak. The new situation in which he now found himself was difficult on all sides. If he had believed that he could help Lutheranism to spread more widely in Bohemia, he was mistaken. The vast majority of Bohemian evangelicals remained more inclined to Calvinism than to Lutheranism. Count Andreas Schlick, on whom the German congregation relied heavily, had collapsed with the Brethren Unity and thus lacked influence over the majority of his compatriots. It seems as if the Lutheran endeavors were generally regarded as foreign and as foreign affairs. This opinion could only be strengthened when, for example, at the laying of the foundation stone for the new German Saviour Church in the old town of Prague on June 27, 1611, the Electoral Saxon secretary of legation Dr. Seuß presided over the ceremony and the "Saxon" Hoë preached the sermon. In addition, in his sermons Hoë was more than well disposed to hatred of all things Calvinist, letting the reins loose and provoking both pulpit feuds and personal enmities. He was persecuted and insulted on the last day of his stay by a vicious Pasquill [?], which was found posted on the gallows in Prague's Old Town. The call of Elector John George I of Saxony, who appointed him as the highest court preacher (January 22, 1613), could therefore only be most welcome to him, [speculation, implies Hoe may have been afraid] because it freed him from a more than unpleasant situation at the right time and in an honorable manner.
However, it was only when he entered this newly founded office that he was given the means to reveal the manifold sides of his character and to gain the position that gave him a place in the history of his time.
The focus of intellectual and spiritual life in Germany at that time lay in the courts and in those individuals who knew how to control them. [Implies Hoe was manipulative, would use intrigue] These were the favorites, confessors and court preachers. By assuming the most prominent ecclesiastical position in the country, Hoë, through his influence on the Elector, retained a – one may say – decisive voice in theological and ecclesiastical, and often also in political and diplomatic affairs, all the more so as these often went hand in hand with the latter or were in fact determined by them. In this respect, the judgment that the fortunes of this period "lay in the hands of two princely confessors, one of whom was Hoë, the other Lämmermann, confessor to Ferdinand I"[WS 1] is therefore not entirely without justification. (Tholuck, Herzogs Realencyklopädie, vol. VI. p. 165.) Thus the popular song of the same time: "Dies laß' mir drei stolze Pfaffen sein", names "Herr Matz" i.e. Matthias v. Hoë as the representative of the Lutherans alongside "Job" the Catholic and "Vater Abraham" (Scultetus) the Calvinist (cf. Opel and Cohn, Der 30jährige Krieg, Halle 1862, p. 104 ff. and p. 179 ff.).
Upon taking office, Hoë immediately began his polemical and literary activities, like an inheritance from his predecessors. The tension between Lutherans and Calvinists, which had increased in an ever [543] more perceptible manner during the last fifty years, had reached its climax. Since electoral Brandenburg and Liegnitz had also left the Lutheran confession, the danger of gradually succumbing to Calvinism seemed so great in Dresden, the state stronghold of Lutheranism, that even a union with the Catholics was not considered reprehensible there. [Not by the true Lutheran teachers!!] This view had by no means been introduced in Saxony by Hoë. As early as 1602, Polykarp Leyser had openly stated "that the Lutherans should rather have common cause with the Papists and, as it were, have more fellowship with them than with and towards the Calvinists". It was therefore only an official duty, so to speak, that Hoë now also turned against the Reformed with particular vigor in his politics. His first quarrels with the Reformed English envoy Stephan Lesurius were only the prelude to a far more violent battle that began in 1614 over the change of confession in Electoral Brandenburg. All the points of contention came together here to give the battle fervor and significance: political hostility between Saxony and Brandenburg over the Jülich succession, religious zeal against heresy, both together because of the threat of the spread of Calvinist power. Of course, Hoë was not acting as a mere private individual when he started the dispute. His four writings of 1614 in this matter had the same value as diplomatic notes today, and their tone and content testify in their intensifications and insinuations at least as much to the degree of enmity [“enmity” is a pejorative term] of Electoral Saxony against Electoral Brandenburg as the Lutherans had against the Calvinists. Both coincide in many cases. If the former diminishes, the latter can also remain silent. It is therefore not at all surprising that when the two hitherto hostile electors approached each other and renewed the old hereditary brotherhood at a personal meeting in Naumburg (March 1614), the same Hoë, who had just hurled lightning bolts against Brandenburg, reported a "Naumburgische Fried- und Freuden-Post", i.e. "Two Christian sermons, one held at the beginning, the other at the happy end of the meeting in Naumburg". However, this mood of the Saxon court preacher was only temporary, just like the friendly relationship between the two spa houses. The old feud began anew, and this time not only against Brandenburg, but against Calvinism in general. [“old feud”? When did Calvin’s doctrine change? (It did not)] Every year, a number of Hoë's writings appear, which, written in an incredibly short time, criticize his opponents in a very crude and mostly exaggerated manner, in keeping with the taste of the time. [In keeping with Luther’s forcefulness] The most interesting of these are: the "Triumphus Calvinisticus", 1614, the "Prodromus", 1618, and the "Trewherzige Warnung für die Jubelfests-Predigt, so im vergangenen Jahr den 2. November zu Heydelberg von Abraham Sculteto, Churfürstl. Pfältzischen Hofe Prediger daselbst gehalten etc.“, Leipz. 1618. The entire hostility, which had grown to the point of hatred, [spoken like a true unionist] which divided both confessions and now especially Saxony and the Palatinate, flares up here in an eerie glow and horribly illuminates the jubilee celebration, which was just then being celebrated in Protestant Germany to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the Reformation. A few months later, the great drama of the Thirty Years' War began in Prague.
Hoë also played his part in it. [Implying culpability] His increasing influence was felt in all important religious and political actions and in ever wider circles. In the election of the Bohemian king, in the election of Ferdinand II as German emperor, in Saxony's alliance with the emperor and the League against Frederick V of the Palatinate, in the negotiations with the Catholics [544] at the infamous Mühlhaus Assembly (March 1620), but also in the effect of freedom of confession for the Lutherans in Silesia and Bohemia, his activity in the spirit of Saxon-Imperial policy, with a particular focus against Calvinism, can be proven. In his reports to Vienna on 22 and 23 February 1620, the imperial envoy to the estates of the Upper and Lower Saxon district, v. Elvern, informs the elector that Hoë is in the elector's ears daily with accusations against the Bohemians, that he paints the Calvinists and Bohemians in the blackest colors, and that he has even called on his master to help the emperor in a separate promemoria. Hoë's hatred of them had astonished him, "he had never thought that he could be so highly disposed towards the Catholics". [This is only because of political consideration.] The Emperor had had a gift presented to Hoë for his children. On February 24, the latter thanked him in the most vivid terms for the imperial grace. "He assured him that he would continue in his previous zeal for service until his death". It cannot be said that Hoë's attitude and this direction in politics met with general approval even in Saxony. The University of Wittenberg, in an official report, strongly denied an alliance with the Emperor, because "it is to be feared that, since the Evangelicals are being helped to be suppressed and oppressed, the Pope will then seek the destruction and extermination of the remaining part, as well as the continuation of the Council of Trent, through his adherents. Furthermore, it is to be feared that the own lands will be put in extreme danger by such actual assistance"; and a (perhaps pseudonymous) "Herr Jakob von Grünthal, Electoral Saxon War Councillor etc.", could even directly call on the Elector in a pamphlet to renounce the alliance with the Emperor, to stop the execution in Lusatia etc. and to have Hoë "executed as a sin offering the sooner the better". A similar agitation is expressed in other contemporaneous writings, all of which refer to Hoë as the author of all misfortune that had arisen from the alliance of an Evangelical state with the emperor and the League (see Joh. Mylius, Much and long-desired… Report as to whether, what, where from, and how far... Dr. Hoë had anything to do with the Bohemian cause... etc.). Dreßden 1620). Hoë, it seems, had no time beforehand to respond to all these serious attacks. The execution procession to Lusatia, Silesia and northern Bohemia was underway, Saxony was eager to hand over its Reformed co-religionists to the Emperor, and Hoë was busy in the camp with sermons of thanksgiving and homage, with advice and expert opinions for the Elector, but also with the collection of the rich gifts that flowed to him from all sides and the honors that the emperor bestowed on him, among other things. The Emperor bestowed upon him the honor of being awarded the title of Imperial Count Palatine (November 1621). No sooner had he returned home, however, than he wrote with his usual fervor against his enemies. He first turned furiously against Mr. v. Grünthal in his "counter-answer to his blasphemous missive, … since it is a devilish poem", then against the Reformed by seeking to prove the "agreement of the Turks and Calvinists" and giving an "apparent sample" of "how the Calvinists agreed with the Arians and Turks on 99 points". All three writings were published before 1621. They are neither original nor convincing; coarse and arrogant as seldom, Hoë is only able to soften the monotony of the expression of his Calvinist hatred to some extent by increasing the accusations and condemnations of his enemies as much as possible. And yet – what good did all this do him! The facts, the friends as well as the enemies, finally the whole development of the [545] German circumstances rose up as powerful accusers against him and the Electoral Saxon policy, which he had so eagerly helped to discredit. Twice, in 1622 and 1624, he had to turn to the emperor or his governor to protect the poor Bohemian and Silesian Lutherans from the most terrible persecutions, which the emperor had imposed on them despite all the promises made to the Saxons; in vain, Bohemian Protestantism [Calvinism] was almost destroyed under his eyes. – Faithful and devout Lutherans were indignant because he had behaved so servilely towards the emperor and the papists and had persuaded his elector to wage war against the Protestants [sic! Calvinists! And is this not speculation?]. He was close to being considered a secret Catholic and this opinion was reinforced by the fact that in 1622 Petrus Cutsemius, Auxiliary Bishop of Cologne, considered the time had come to publicly call on the Elector of Saxony and his people to return to the Catholic Church in his Saxonia Catholica. – No wonder, therefore, that the reputation Saxony had enjoyed among Lutherans since the Reformation in purely ecclesiastical matters declined to a very alarming degree. [?] It was the Tübingeners who, in the dispute that had broken out between them and the Giesseners over the κρύψις and κένωσις, first confronted the Saxons and, at their head, Hoë, when the latter brought the differences between the two faculties, which were friends of theirs, before their forum and, under Hoë's chairmanship, presented a decision written by him ("Thorough explanation in accordance with God's Word and the Christian Book of Concord etc.", Leipzig 1624) in which they condemned the people of Tübingen. In their "extremely vehement and stinging" reply, "Amica admonitio", they did not show the slightest desire to recognize the authority of the Saxons and could not be persuaded to do so by Hoë's reply: "Necessaria et inevitabilis Apologia", Leipzig 1625. Hoë and his Leipzig theological convent fared no better in the Rathmann dispute, in which the Rostock people who supported Rathmann and especially the excellent Paul [conditional absolution] and Johann Tarnov [Tarnow] quickly explained to them that they did not recognize them as judges (1629). It had been in vain that the theologians' conventicles, which from 1621-28 regularly and as officially as possible judged and decided the theological disputes of the time in Saxony, had been able to maintain the authority over doctrine and faith of the Elector's chief court preacher and the Saxon universities as in the old days. The time of theological battles and their general influence was over; they were replaced by political ones, of course without denying the fellowship of origin and the inner kinship with them. – The Edict of Restitution (1627) hit Saxony just as hard as the other Evangelical states. The leniency that Ferdinand II had initially shown towards John George I soon came to an end. The Jesuits were already claiming that it was not just a question of the return of the church property confiscated after the Peace of Augsburg, but of all former spiritual possessions, because the Evangelicals had deviated from the Augsburg Confession on which that peace was based. This was a highly questionable assertion, especially for Saxony. [questionable? Not a lie?]] The Elector commissioned Hoë and the theologians gathered with him in Leipzig to refute it. With their consent, he published the "Nothwendige Vertheidigung des Hoë Röm. Reichs Chur-Fürsten und Stände Augapfels, nemlich der – Augsb. Confession etc.", Leipzig 1628 and to the Jesuit reply: "Brill auf den Evangelischen Augapfel etc.", 1629 the: "Nochmalige Hauptvertheidigung des – Aug-Apfels etc.", 1630 two writings, the last of which in particular, written with the collaboration of the great Lutheran dogmatist Joh. Gerhard, still occupies a very important place among Protestant polemical works today because of its profound erudition and the force of its [546] arguments. – This finally provided clarity to the Catholics; the celebration of the commemoration of the delivery of the Augsburg Confession [of 1530] could only help to increase it. On the Elector's orders, Hoë wrote the "Manuale Jubilaeum Evangelicum", Leipzig 1630, for which he was attacked by Cutsemius and forced to write the "Responsio ad Paraenesin provocatoriam D. Petri Cutsemii", Leipzig 1632, which thoroughly destroyed the hopes of the Catholics. But even before this document, the emperor's increasingly clear intentions had required and brought about an understanding between the Saxon court and the other Evangelicals. The Leipzig Convention marked this important step that Saxon politics finally dared to take. It was opened on February 10/20, 1631. Hoë preached the opening sermon in St. Thomas's Church, which he based on the words of the Psalm: "God is not silent, and yet do not be so silent" etc., and while the princes met, their theologians, Hoë Höpffner, Jo. Höpner and Hoë from Saxony, and Bergius, Crocius and Neuberger from Brandenburg and Hesse, held peaceful and conciliatory religious discussions from 3rd to 23rd. March. The Augsburg Confession, even the invariata, was recognized by the Reformed; only with regard to Articles 3 and 10 did they maintain their dissent. This was a highly significant success for both religious and political conditions: The hitherto prevailing Lutheran separatism, which in the course of time had gradually developed into a kind of Saxon raison d'état, was, at least before hand, abandoned (J. H. A. Ebrard, Kirchen- und Dogmengesch. vol. III. p. 648 ff.). Hoë had proved that under certain circumstances he could be pliable enough to dispose himself and his master to conciliatory steps – if only he wanted to. However, this compliance should not be misleading. The Elector and his court preacher initially only took account of the constraints of circumstances. Until the Battle of Lützen, they had cleverly put aside their old inclination towards the imperial house and their enmity towards the allied Calvinists. But no sooner had the death of Gustav Adolf restored the independence of the ever jealous Dresden court than the old affections and aversions immediately took hold of it again. The fact that Hoë was granted a decisive influence here also indicated the direction they were inclined to take. On March 28, 1634, Hoë was ordered by the Elector to give an expert opinion in the Privy Council on the question: "Whether the Protestants could and should take up arms for the good of Calvinism, and in all events, for the sake of Calvinism alone, reject the highly necessary peace in the Holy Roman Empire, but continue with the bloody weapons?" The answer was self-evident; but it surprised by its ruthless brusqueness in view of the recent past: "Anyone with a Christian heart and conscience must say no," explained Hoë. For as bright as the sun is at noon, it is true that the Calvinist doctrine is full of terrible blasphemies, abominable errors and abominations, and is diametrically opposed to God's revealed Word" (Unschuld. Nachr. 1734, p. 570 ff.). That was quite the old Hoë; his transformation had not lasted long. Now it was also decided what had to follow. The Peace of Prague in 1635 marked the return of Electoral Saxony to the policy of 1620 with all its consequences for the Evangelicals [so-called] in Silesia and Bohemia affected by it.
Just as they had been handed over to their mortal enemy at that time without a proper judgment of their own actions, they were now handed over to the same enemy for the second time, but with the definite realization that their church was doomed to destruction. This could have been possible for the Saxon councillors who brokered the peace, and perhaps even for the Elector in view of some political advantages, without too much hesitation; but Hoë resolutely resisted this in the Privy Council, not even once striving to exclude the Calvinists from the peace (K. G. Helbig, Der Prager Friede; in v. Raumer's historisches Taschenbuch, 1858, p. 616).
Saxony's demand at the Pirna negotiations that the Augsburg Confession be released in the imperial hereditary lands was certainly also based on his proposal, and it is therefore quite understandable that he told Field Marshal v. Arnim on the evening before the thanksgiving ceremony because of the Pirna peace acts that the Elector could not justify them in his conscience and was acting against equity, although he himself preached the thanksgiving sermon the next day (Nov. 16, 1634). This fact is perfectly understandable as soon as one recognizes Hoë's position at the court of Johann Georg I. There is therefore no need to believe that the Emperor bribed Hoë. The Elector's wish to see the peace made, so that he could be freed from the Swedish alliance, was sufficient to win him over to peace. And this is sufficiently attested.
Admittedly, his behavior had rightly aroused strong doubts about his incorruptibility. He himself had often enough boasted of the honorable acknowledgments and gifts of both the emperor and other princes and distinguished persons. He had also "acquired quite a handsome fortune, and was heir to the estates of Lungwitz, Gönßdorff, Ober- and Nieder-Rachwitz, thus leaving his family behind him in good fortune and prosperity" (Gleich, Vol. II. p. 136). Pufendorf, Rer. Suecicar. Lib. VII. § 43 p. 195, reports of the suspicion that Hoë had had his inclination to the Peace of Prague bought for 10,000 thalers, which he received from the Emperor, and Spanheim, Mémoires sur la vie et la mort de la Princesse Loyse Juliane etc., Leyden 1645, p. 154 and p. 327 almost claims that Hoë had been won over for the Emperor in 1620, as well as in 1635 par diverses bricolles et la graine du Peru. However, very few of these accusations can be proven, and as often as they were made during Hoë's lifetime, they were often rejected (see Hoë, "Unvermeidentliche Rettung Churfürstl. Durchlaucht zu Sachsen" etc., Leipzig 1635). Hoë was certainly not entirely pure in this respect; [judgment call] but one can hardly blame him for being more receptive to such reprimands than was the case, on average, with most councillors and favorites of princes at the time. Above all, it is incorrect to always describe him as being related to the electoral councillor David Döring, who had certainly accepted a bribe at the Prague peace negotiations. Hoë was neither his brother-in-law nor his father-in-law, and family connections between Hoë's and Döring's children only took place 2 and 7 years respectively after the death of the latter (1638) (Gleich a. a. p. 140 and 142).
Electress Magdalene Sibylla [“a zealous and pious Protestant and an enthusiastic admirer of Gustav Adolf, she was a staunch opponent of her husband's policies”], Joh. Georg's wife, who looked at the people and circumstances surrounding her husband with a very sharp eye, does not accuse Hoë of corruption, as she does with others in the most definite form, but of ambition and resentment. (K. A. Müller, Kurf. Joh. Georg I. etc., Dresden and Leipzig 1838, p. 198.) In fact, she hits the particularly prominent faults of his character. His noble household, his obvious striving to associate with distinguished persons, his hollow boasting with the title and dignity of an imperial [548] Count Palatine, his harshness and persecution against his fellow official, the oldest court preacher Hänichen, basically also his unmistakable addiction, as the head and guardian of the pure Lutheran Church, to vindicate both the office of arbitrator over the disputing parties of the same, as well as the right of defense against the attacks directed against it – all this testifies that he was not willing and able to play a secondary role anywhere in life. [All judgmental and likely from weakness in judgment.] He did, however, retain first place with his prince until the end of his life.
The last years of his life passed under the terrible tribulations of a never-ending war, which he perhaps never recognized as his fault for having caused and prolonged. [HARSH!] He had, that was enough for him, known how to make himself indispensable to his prince. Their natures had something in common. Added to this was his skill in the treatment of this man, his servile behavior, which he knew how to clothe [cloak?] with great skill in a gentlemanly and loyal form. That is why he was very well suited to be the confessor of a Johann Georg who was not allowed to be married, but who allowed himself to be guided. This gave him great power to rejuvenate the church – and yet, how Protestantism in Saxony aged in his time! A theologian afraid to give up even one title of the Lutheran doctrinal system, but without faith in the world-conquering power of his confession; a loud, impressive pulpit orator, but a preacher full of fear of man; finally, a political advisor, like most court theologians of his time, but a counselor who let "the mouth of the Lord" speak according to the wishes of the party or the elector and did not forget himself and his friends – such a personality was not suitable to stop a prince, a country, an era, as they were at that time, in their tracks and, with the prophetic voice of a successor to Luther, once again lead degenerate Protestantism back to its world-historical calling. In this way, he also played a not insignificant role in the spread of Catholicism, although his polemics against it leave no doubt as to his anti-papal sentiments. [Brecher against himself!] – The main scholarly work in this direction was his "Commentarius in Apocalypsin", 2 vols. 1610-40, the fruit of 30 years' work, celebrated by his contemporaries for his erudition, but forgotten today. His other literary achievements belong to the field of practical theology; the most numerous are his sermons, which offer both interesting insights into contemporary history and good material for assessing the tectonics of pulpit oratory at the time. – He died on March 4, 1645; his grave is in the Sophienkirche in Dresden.
J. A. Gleich, Annales ecclesiastici, Dresden and Leipzig 1730, II. vol. p. 1-206 (also contains a fairly accurate list of his writings). J. M. Schröckh, Abbildungen und Lebensbeschreibungen berühmter Gelehrten, Leipzig 1767, vol. III. pp. 168-241. F. K. Wißgrill, Schauplatz des niederösterr. Adels, vol. IV, 1800, p. 349. Cf. also A. Weise in Ersch und Gruber's Allgem. Encyklopädie, sect. II. Th. IX. Tholuck in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. vol. VI. The same, Das kirchl. Leben des 17. Jahrh., I. Abth. 1861. - J. P. Oettel, Zuverläßige Historie aller Herrn Pastoren und Superintendenten der Creyß-Stadt Plauen, Schneeberg 1747. - Häberlin, Neue deutsche Reichsgeschichte fortgesetzt von Senkenberg, vol. XXIV. pp. 365, 485, 541, 543. - Hurter, Geschichte des Kaisers Ferdinands II. und seiner Eltern, 1853, vol. XI. Pescheck, Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen, Vol. I. 1844, p. 228. - Czerwenka, Geschichte der evangel. Böttiger, Geschichte Sachsens, 2nd ed. 1870, vol. II. - Gindely, Geschichte des 30jähr. Krieges, vol. II. Th. Wiedemann, Geschichte der Reformation u. Gegenreformation im Lande unter der Enns, Prague 1879, vol. I., p. 417 ff. 1878. H. Hitzigrath, Die Publicistik des Prager Friedens (1635), Halle 1880, pp. 4-25.
[Adolf] Brecher (de.Wikipedia)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.