One characteristic feature of this epoch is the fact that two religions, two powers, were then dominant in Hungary; Rome and Constantinople, the Pope and Mohammed. The former persecuted the Gospel, and the latter granted to it reasonable liberty. Roman Catholicism recognized in evangelical Christianity its own principal doctrines, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the expiation of the cross and others besides; while Islamism was shocked at the idea of the Trinity, of the Godhead of the Saviour, and of salvation by His expiation, and said haughtily—‘God is God, and Mohammed is his prophet.’ In the nature of things Roman Catholicism would surely respect and protect evangelical Christians who were living under the dominion of the Crescent; and the successor of Mohammed would as naturally persecute those who, in his opinion, professed detestable doctrines, as his master had done before him, sword in hand. The very reverse took place.
Rome A Persecutor.
This, however, is easily explained. Rome, by her church system, had established herself apart from the Gospel. Of course something of the Christian religion remained in her doctrine; and this Christianity was and had always been dear to the seven thousand who, in the midst of the Catholics, had not bowed the knee to Baal. But this residuum was generally concealed, and what was apparent was something entirely different. It was the pope, his cardinals, his agents, worship paid to the Virgin, to the saints, to created beings, numberless rites, images, pilgrimages, indulgences, and every one knows what besides. The Catholicism of the pontiffs, not finding these superfluities and superstitions in evangelical Christianity, was stoutly opposed to it. It was all the more so because it saw instead the great principles of a living faith, of regeneration, and of the new birth, of which it knew not what to make. It therefore waged on its opponents ‘a strange and long war in which violence attempted to suppress the truth. It committed frightful excesses against the word of Jesus Christ.’[[596]] Ultramontanism in the sixteenth century, as well as in later times, awoke every morning with sword drawn, in a kind of rage, like Saul, and wanted to overturn every thing, as has been said of the writer who was in our own time its most energetic champion.[[597]] It did as he boasted of doing, fired in the teeth of the enemy.
The position of Islamism was different. In view of the two forms of Christianity, it despised both and was not at all inclined to place its sword, as the Catholic princes did, at the service of the pope. In the Roman churches the Mohammedan was chiefly struck by the images; and remembering better than the pope the commandment of God—Thou shalt not make any graven image nor the likeness of any thing—he felt a higher esteem for Protestants who kept it. The judges appointed by the Sublime Porte often displayed a sense of justice; and they did not think it their duty to sacrifice good men to their enemies on the ground of their not acknowledging the high-priest of Rome. While therefore we meet in these years with instances of the respect shown by the Turks for the free worship of the Gospel,[[598]] we constantly find examples and very numerous ones of Romish intolerance.
Ferdinand formed an exception. He perceived that the Reformation was making great progress in his kingdom; and, more enlightened than his brother had been, far from declaring open war on Protestantism, he was anxious of the two opposing parties to mould one single Church, and thought that in order to succeed in this he must make important concessions. He believed, in common with the Hungarian Diet, that a general council alone, which should take as the basis of its labors the Holy Scriptures, could bring about this important reconciliation. This council, which assembled at Trent in December, 1545, Ferdinand called upon to unite the two parties by effecting a reform of faith and morals, particularly as regarded the pope and his court; by abolishing dispensations and simony, sources of so much disorder; by transforming the clergy, who ought for the future to give themselves to an honorable and chaste behavior, and to primitive simplicity and purity in their dress, their way of life, and their doctrine; by administration of the Supper in both kinds; by urging the pope to take as his model the humility of Jesus; by abolishing the celibacy of priests, occasion of so much scandal; and by suppressing apocryphal traditions.[[599]] These demands for reform showed plainly enough what strength the Gospel had gained in Hungary, and the immense benefit which the Reformation would have conferred on the Church universal if Rome, instead of withstanding it, had submitted to its wholesome influence. Instead of all this the council pronounced the anathema against the holiest doctrines of the Gospel and of the Reformation.
Council Of Trent.
If Hungary did not succeed in exerting an influence upon the Council of Trent, the council nevertheless produced some effect on Hungary. Evangelical Christians felt the necessity of drawing together, of concentration, of union. There were in the country, in the fifteenth century, some Hussite congregations, the organization of which was Presbyterian in form; and God had just raised up a great number of Christians who, by means of Devay and others, had been brought into contact with the Swiss, and had attached themselves to the synodal system which was flourishing among the confederates. They desired to act in concert and to help each other under the direction of Christ, the King of the Church, at a time when the adherents of the pope were united under his law. The powerful and pious magnate Caspar Dragfy encouraged them with a promise of his protection. An assembly was held in the town of Erdoed, comitat of Szathmar, in the north of Transylvania. Twenty-nine pastors attached to the Helvetic confession met there; and anxious to set forth the faith which formed their bond of union, they conversed together of God, of the Redeemer, of the justification of the sinner, of faith, good works, the sacraments, the confession of sins, Christian liberty, the head of the Church, the Church, the order which must be established in it, and the lawful separation from Rome. They were all agreed; and having embodied in a formula their belief on these twelve points, they were desirous at the same time of expressing their close union with all Christians and particularly with the disciples of Luther. They therefore added in conclusion the following statement: ‘In the other articles of the faith we agree with the true Church, as it is set forth in the confession presented at Augsburg to the emperor Charles the Fifth.’ This conclusion shows that on some points these churches did not agree with the Confession of Augsburg, and proves the adhesion of the Erdoed pastors to the Helvetic confession; an adhesion which is denied by some writers.[[600]]
It was not long before the Lutherans on their side followed this example. They were found chiefly in those parts of Hungary and Transylvania in which German was spoken; while the Helvetic confession had its most numerous adherents among the Magyars of Finnish origin.
In 1546, five towns of Upper Hungary held an assembly at Eperies, in which sixteen articles of faith were settled. ‘We will continue faithful,’ said the delegates, ‘to the faith professed in the Confession of Augsburg and in Melanchthon’s book.’[[601]] This assembly laid down very rigorous regulations. A minister who should teach any other doctrine, after being warned, was to be deprived of his office; and the magistrate was to be exhorted not to allow serious offences, in order that the ministers might not be compelled to re-establish excommunication. No one was to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper until he had been properly examined.
Notwithstanding the severity of these principles and the determined temper of the Hungarians, there were not seen among them at this time those passionate conflicts which sometimes took place between opposing confessions. This may have been owing to the difference of nationalities. For the two races inhabiting the country were separated by language and by customs. It may also have been the case that there was a clearer apprehension in this noble country than elsewhere of the truth that when there exists a unity in the great doctrines of the faith contention ought not to be allowed on secondary points.[[602]]