‘We believe that we all, as Christians, are priests in Christ Jesus, our only and eternal High-priest; and that as such we are to offer ourselves to God as living and acceptable sacrifices, to preach and to pray. But among these priests some must be chosen, with the consent of the church, who may preach to the Church, may administer the sacraments, and serve it. These are the true bishops or presbyters, words which are completely synonymous.[[298]] (Art. 36 and 40.)
‘Lastly, we believe that the head and ruler of the true Christian Church is Jesus Christ alone, he who is our salvation; and we do not acknowledge as head any creature in heaven or on earth.’ (Art. 43.)
Other articles prohibited ceremonies not in accordance with the Word of God; excommunication pronounced against those whom God does not excommunicate; sacraments which are not instituted in the Scriptures; distinctions of meats and of days; the monastic life; the service which consists merely of chants; vigils for the dead, ornaments, cowls, the tonsure, anointings, or other outward signs of holiness; the withholding of the cup; the mass; the use of a language which the people do not understand; the invocation of saints; faith in any other mediator than Jesus Christ; pretended good works, indulgences, brotherhoods, and other novelties invented by priests and monks; purgatory; masses for the dead; the meddling of bishops or presbyters in business matters, in the pomps and shows of the world, in war, in the command of armies, in judicial functions, or in any thing not belonging to their office; refusal to obey princes and magistrates in any thing not contrary to the will of God; images in the churches, which do no harm indeed to the wise, but which may lead to idolatry simple men without understanding, and which ought to be everywhere removed, but only with the consent of the pastors, the magistrates, and the Church.[[299]] (Art. 35 to 42.)
Such was the faith of the evangelical Christians of Scandinavia. This confession is a mirror which reflects their likeness feature for feature. We are better acquainted with them after reading it, and we see in them true disciples of the Gospel.
Not so thought the prelates. This confession which the king had placed in their hands astonished them. They had expected that the Protestants would be intimidated, and would not venture to publish their faith; and now they found them putting it forward with great decision. They determined to present a bill of indictment against these innovators.[[300]] ‘We remember,’ they said to the prince, ‘the engagements which you made on your accession to the throne. Now, John Tausen and other disciples of Luther allege that the Church, for thirteen or fourteen centuries, has been tainted with error; that works are useless; that Christians of both sexes are priests; that all the convents must be demolished; that man has no free-will, and that every thing comes to pass by virtue of absolute necessity.’[[301]]
The prelates, however, shrank from a vivâ voce discussion, which would have resounded through the whole kingdom. They therefore required the Protestants to prove their assertions in writing, anxious that every thing should be confined to writings of which they alone should take cognizance.
Reply Of The Evangelicals.
The evangelicals energetically disproved these charges,[[302]] and particularly that of denying freedom and maintaining fatalism. With regard to the imputation brought against them of recognizing only a universal priesthood, they said—‘Will you reject a Turk or a Russian who has received Christian instruction from a layman, if he die before having been instructed by a priest?[[303]] There is then a priesthood for Christians; but no one may hold any office in holy Church without being appointed to it by the Church, for St. Paul will have all things done decently and in order.’ The evangelicals, who on this point were completely opposed to the prelates, did not content themselves with written apologies, but wished for a public disputation, at which they might defend their faith by word of mouth. This was conceded, and it was to be held in the royal palace. The halls for the meetings were ready. But the debates, according to the Protestants, ought to take place in the vulgar tongue, in order to be understood by the laity. The prelates, on the other hand, absolutely refused this, and would only agree to Latin, a language unknown to the people, the townsmen, and even to most of the nobles. The evangelicals further declared that they would recognize no other standard of authority than Holy Scripture; and they added that the king, the members of his council, and the whole people would be able themselves to discern which of the two parties were in agreement with it. ‘We acknowledge no other interpreters,’ said the bishops, ‘than the Fathers and the councils, nor any other judge than the pope and the next council.’—‘This is a mere subterfuge,’ said the doctors of the Reformation; ‘you want to prevent the discussion, and thus escape from an embarrassing position. You will not enter into the sheepfold by the true door, and you have no care for the sheep of the Saviour.’—‘Alas!’ exclaimed the members and the creatures of the clergy, ‘if the Lutherans have so much boldness, it is because a sacrilegious king shuts his eyes to their insolence, nay even instigates them, and because the infatuated nobles and blameworthy citizens encourage them.’[[304]] But it was indeed out of the abundance of their hearts that the reformers spoke.
The Two Parties.
Two parties very unlike each other were now brought face to face. The theocratic element had long prevailed in Denmark, and still characterized the party of the bishops. Another principle had appeared in the midst of this people, which characterized the reformers and their adherents. This was the religious element. It is a happiness for a nation when the reign of a theocracy comes to an end; it is on the other hand a misfortune when the religious element is weakened. There are not wanting in a nation minds, and these some of the most distinguished, whose interest is concentrated on secular knowledge and inventions; and we are very far from wishing to exclude this tendency. Experience shows that it may exist in the most Christian souls. But if a people is given up entirely to this industrial propensity, which is so powerful in our day, if they sacrifice to it the interest which they had previously felt in religious life, it is just as if the bones which sustain the whole body were removed from any living animal. This process has been very much recommended in this age by some philosophers. We do not desire, however, to see it carried out in the case either of an individual or a nation.