Reformátusok Lapja, 1969 (69. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1969-08-01 / 8-9. szám
10 REFORMÁTUSOK LAPJA Andrew Harsányi A Brief Survey of the Office of Bishop in the Reformed Church in Hungary (Continued from previous issue) All in all, the leadership of the clergy was almost exclusive. Among the clergy, however, strict discipline was required—all synodal resolutions (arti- culi) stressed this point. The bishop must not avoid the judgment of the people. On the other hand, seniors and superintendents should be the “heads” of the pastors and the chairmen of their gatherings, they should guide the pastors in the true and sound doctrine and refute the adversaries. It can be concluded from the proceedings of the many synods of the Reformed Church during the latter part of the sixteenth century that the participants endeavored to accomplish a balance of power: to safeguard the purity of doctrine through the superintendents (bishops) and seniors, and to safeguard against any absolutistic rule through their responsibility to the synods. This was the stand of Peter Melius, the moving spirit behind the decisive Synod of Debrecen (1567), and in the Confessio Catholica (1561). His main concern was— we repeat—the purity and soundness of doctrine; structure was subject to it. As to the office of bishop, this was not contrary to Calvin’s thinking either. In his letter to the King of Poland, Calvin did not object to provincial or city bishops, holding that it was natural to entrust one man with the oversight, provided he was elected. The Articuli Maiores of the 1567 Synod of Debrecen (which, by the way, adopted the II. Helvetic Confession) have become the source of the structure of church government in the Reformed Church in Hungary. The development in the Cistibiscan area was much the same, with the difference that the four seniorates (tracts) did not elect a superintendent, although they did create a joint synod (Synodus Generalis). This, however, remained under the collegiate leadership of the four seniors until 1735. It should be noted that nowhere in the Hungarian Church in the sixteenth century was there an organized church council of laymen. One reason for this was that, for the sake of safeguarding the purity of doctrine, no decision making in the matters of faith could be left to theologically untrained laymen. The other reason was based on Hungary’s social structure: noblemen would not sit in the same council with their bondsmen and be subjected to their rulings. The seventeenth century brought some changes in this trend. Pastors in the course of their studies abroad learned about the operation of “presbyte- riums.” The emphasis on purely defined doctrine began to give way, although only sporadically, to practical considerations. Good example for this is the Pettr Balogh, Deputy Bishop attempt of a pastor of Debrecen (and later of Nagyvárad), E. Szilvásujfalusi Anderko, who, after obtaining an opinion from David Paraeus (Heidelberg), wanted to abolish the office of bishop, which he called a “Roman Catholic office.” The autocratic rule of the bishop, Hodászi, undoubtedly played a significant role in his stand. Anyway, although three seniorates supported him, his move was rejected by the Synod of Nagyvárad in 1610, and he was suspended from office. So also was János Tolnai Dali, who was the promoter of puritanism in Hungary. Besides a plea for the spiritual deepening of life in the church and for the introduction of presbyteria (local church councils), he also demanded the abolition of the office of bishop—without success: the Synod of Szat- már, 1646, condemned and suspended him. The episcopal-senioral system of church government continued. At the same time, synods found it necessary to stress the responsibility of bishops to synods. The Synod of Pápa, in 1630, declared that bishops were also subject to church discipline exercised by the synod and that all clergy, including bishops, should be examined by the synods as to their personal life and conduct. Nevertheless, lay participation in church government progressed, although unofficially (that is, not actually included in the articles of the synods). Land- owners and city councilmen more frequently voted in synods, some local presbyteria were organized. Again, the political situation contributed to this: in areas where the Reformed people were in the minority, the protection of powerful laymen (nobles, landowners) was needed and sought after. (To be continued in next issue.)
