1 Cf. Lampe, Historia, p. 267.
3 Cf. Lampe, op. cit., pp. 245–249. In the caption to this Sententia occurs the word Unitarios, which if an authentic part of the original is apparently the earliest demonstrable use of the word, but it is quite possible that this caption instead of being a part of the original, is the composition of the editor, and hence of much later date.
7 Cf. Zanchi, De tribus Elohim (Heidelberg, 1572); Major, De uno Deo et tribus personis adversus Franc. Davidis et Georg. Blandratam (Witebergae, 1569); answered by Dávid and Biandrata, Refutatio scripti Georgii Majoris, etc. (Kolozsvár, 1569); Major, Commonefactio ad Ecclesiam Catholicam, . . . contra Blandratam, etc. (Witebergae, 1569).
12 In the first Unitarian controversial book (1567) the authors call themselves Ministri ecclesiarum consentientium in Sarmatja et Transylvania. In the report of the disputation at Gyulafehérvár (1568) the debaters on Dávid’s side are called Ministers of the Evangelical profession, while their opponents are called Ministers of the Catholic truth; although later usage so changed that the term Evangelical was used to designate the orthodox Protestants, and the term Catholic was transferred from them to the Roman Catholics. By a similar change the term Trinitarian, generally used by Catholic writers until late in the sixteenth century to denote anti-trinitarians, came instead to be applied to believers in the Trinity (whom Catholics had hitherto called simply orthodoxi), leaving its etymological opposite, Unitarian, to designate their opponents. The new religion was slow in acquiring an accepted name, and for some time its adherents were referred to merely as of the Kolozsvár profession (in distinction from the Szeben profession or Lutherans) or as of Francis Dávid s religion or as of the other religion or church’ (cf Magyar Eimlékek, ii, 231, 123).
The historical origin of the name Unitarian has been long and persistently misrepresented on the sole authority of Peter Bod a Calvinistic author who in his Smirnai Szent Polikárpus (1766), p. 22 (substantially repeated in his Historia Unitariorum, Lugduni Batavorum, 1781, p. 43 f; and his Historia Hungarorum Ecclesiastica, i, 412 f) states that the name is derived from a unio of Dávid’s followers with the other confessions as decreed at the Diet of Torda in 1563(v. supra, Ms p. 46 f). This statement, which has been blindly followed by many later writers, is pure conjecture, first put forth after the lapse of a century. It is historically incorrect, since the legalizing of limited religious toleration in 1563did not constitute any union of religions which continued mutually opposed to one another; it is etymologically absurd, since the noun unio does not yield the adjective unitarius; it is not supported by a shred of evidence; and it was contradicted by more careful writers both before and after; cf. Andrew Wiszowaty in Christopher Sandius, Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum (Freistadii-Amsterdam, 1684), p. 225; Ferencz Horváth, Apologia Fratrum Unitariorum (Kolozsvár, 1701), p A2a; Benkö Transsilvania (1777), ii, 135; Székely, Történetei (1839), pp. 72—74. The authentic origin is given, as below, in a careful study De cognominatione Unitariorum, by Uzoni, Historia, i, 183—193.
The name originated at the time of the great dispute at Gyulafehérvár in 1568, in the course of which Mélius quite often concluded his argument by saying, Ergo Deus est trinitarius. He also used the word in a work now lost and known to us only by quotations from it in Dávid’s Refutatio scripti Petri Melii (Gyulafehéryár, 1567); cf. Uzoni, Historia, i, 502 f. Hence his party naturally came to be called Trinitarians and their opponents would naturally be called Unitarians. The name seems thus to have come into general use only gradually and it was long before it was employed in the formal proclamations of their Superintendents With the possible exception named above (Ms p. 81, n. 1), it is not found in print as the denomination of the church until 1600, when the unitarja religio is named as one of the four received religions in a decree of the Diet of Léczfalva (cf. Magyar Emlékek iv, 551) in the extreme southeastern part of Transylvania. The name was never used by the Socinians in Poland; but late in the seventeenth century Transylvanian Unitarian students made it well-known in Holland, where the Socinians in exile, who had never adopted Socinian as the name of their movement and were more and more objecting to it, welcomed it as distinguishing them from Trinitarians. It thus gradually superseded the term Socinian, and spread to England and America, as will be seen.
14 Approbatae Constitutiones Regni Transylvaniae et partium Hungariae eidem annexarum (Varadini, 1653). The Article concerned reads as follows: The four received religions of the realm are henceforth perpetually to be regarded as authorized, following the praiseworthy example of our ancestors of blessed memory, since both the continuance of our common fatherland and the Constitution of the realm and the agreements made between the Estates demand this. These four received religions, namely, the Evangelical-Reformed (or Calvinist), the Lutheran or Augsburg, the Roman Catholic, the Unitarian or Anititrinitarian, shall be allowed henceforth free practice in the places usual according to the Constitutions of the realm. Pars I, tit.. i, art. 2.
15 Cf. Magyar Emlékek, ii, 280, 374. The extant records of the Diet do not give any explicit or detailed statement of the terms of this action, but the action taken at subsequent Diets clearly assumes and confirms what is here said. Cf. Jakab, Dávid, p. 184. Haner’s statement (Historia, p. 287), that after very serious discussion David and the Prince obtained nothing but that under the name of the Unitarian religion as defined by certain articles they were bound to live in the city of Kolozsvár, is not supported by any authority, and seems wholly improbable. Uzoni (Historia, 1, 201 ff) makes a valiant attempt to show that the Unitarian religion was the second in order to be legalized, and the Catholic the last; but his reasoning has not been generally accepted. Cf. Burian, Dissertatio, pp. 215–235.
17 This is not quite to forget the case of Mózes Székely, who was elected Prince of Transylvania in 1603, but was killed in battle before he could be fairly seated on his throne; nor that of the Russian Pretender Demetrius, who briefly flourished two or three years later. Cf. supra, vol. i, 422 f.
23Cf. Possevino, Transjlvanja p. 94; Bethlen, Historia ii, 211. This complaint was perhaps the reason why he chose for his personal physician Dr. Biandrata, who had established a reputation for his treatment of such cases; e.g., that of Lismanino in Poland. v. supra, vol. i, p. 317, n. 47.
42 As Unitarianism had been very prevalent among the Szeklers, the crushing defeat of Békés meant a serious weakening of their cause, since so many of them thus lost their lives or their property,. and the loyalty of them all was long under suspicion.
43 Who, as now Vaivode of Transylvania, may have thought this the surest way to win back the loyal support of Békés’s many followers among the Szeklers. The influence of Biandrata, to whom Stephen was under deep obligations for his new throne, was doubtless no small factor.
44 Cf. Ürmössy, Békés, p. 218 f; Bethlen, Historia, ii,431–433; Uzoni, Historia, i, 611–614. Békés died at Grodno in November, 1579, eight days before Dávid. His tomb is on the summit of a hill near Wilno. Religious hatred of the famous ‘Arian’ (who evidently remained such until death) attributed to him an epitaph composed as he was about to die, breathing blatant materialism and atheism and abjuring all Christian faith; but it was early proved to be a forgery. Cf. Henryk Merczyng, ‘Polscy deiści i wolno myślicielski za Jagiellonów’, Przeglad Historyczny, xii (1911,), 3 f; Tadeusz Grabowski, Literatura Aryańska w Polsce (Arian Literature in Poland), Kraków, 1908, p. 99; Monumenta Poloniae Vaticana (Cracoviae, 1913–15), iv, 508, 542, 553.
6 After the accession of Heltai to their cause in 1569, they published more and more on his press at Kolozsvár, though subject to a censorship that prevented controversial or otherwise offensive works. Thus Bishop Enyedi’s Explicationes locorum Veteris & Novi Testamenti printed in 1597 was prohibited and many copies burned by order of Sigismund Báthory. It was clandestinely reprinted in Holland in 1670.
8 Mélius from his seat at Debreczen had done his best to rally the shattered remnants of Calvinism in Transylvania, but he died in 1572, and it was perhaps then that Alesius was made Superintendent of the surviving Reformed congregations.
12 As nearly as can be made out from the scattered and scanty data, Dávid seems to have been thrice married. The first wife, married in 1557 (Jakab, Dávjd, p. 212), who had borne him several children, died shortly before 1572(cf. letter of Paksj to Simler, Miscellanea Tigurina, ii, 216). The second was Catharine Barát, daughter of the Burgomaster, quite young and rich, whom he married in 1572 (ibid.). She sued him for divorce in 1574, and was still living at Kolozsvár in 1583 (cf. Possevino, Transilvania p. 131; id., De sectarjorum nostri temporjs atheismis, Coloniae, 1586, p. 84b). The third is mentioned by Biandrata in a letter to Palaeologus, 1578 (cf. Uzoni, Historia, i, 243).
14The veredict is given by Bod, Historia, i, 347–349; and by Jakab Elek, Oklevéltár Kolozsvár Története (Kolozsvár Historical Archives), Budapest, 1888, ii, 123. Cf. also Károly Szabó, ‘Dávid Ferencz Valopére,’ Erdély Protestans Közlöny, xi (1881), 340 f; Gergely Benczedi, same title, Kerészteny Magvetö, xx (1885), 363 ff. Haner’s brief account (Historia, p. 297 f) is exaggerated and marked by violent prejudice.
17 Cf. Epistolae et Acta, i, 130 f. These three villages had been a part of the endowment of an abbey at Kolozsvár, which had been taken over by the government when Isabella returned in 1551, and had now fallen again to the public treasury. Biandrata later sold them, and in 1581 Stephen bought them back again and gave them for the endowment of the Jesuit college.
20 At the Diet of Torda in 1572, the language of the decree confirming the rights of the Unitarian churches granted the previous year clearly implies that Dávid was not then regarded as Superintendent of the Unitarian churches, but only as their leading minister, the Superintendent referred to being doubtless Alesius of the Reformed Church, from which the Unitarians had not yet formally separated. Cf. Magyar Emlékek., ii, 528; Ő nagysága Dávid Ferenczet es az superintendenst hívassa hozzá.’ Benkö, op. cit., ii, 221.
22 Cf. Magyar Emlékek, iii, 108, 8. At this period Kolozsvár and Torda were almost entirely Unitarian. Calvinists had been tolerated there from 1572, but they were few in number, worshiping in private houses.
23 Cf. Magyar Em1ékek, iii, 122, 16; Benkö, op. cit., ii, 226; Peter Bod, Smirnai Szent Polikárpus (St. P. of Smyrna), Hermannstadt, 1766, p. 29 f. This apparently unjust restriction was perhaps at first made out of suspicion of the loyalty of the Szeklers who had been followers of Békés. The unwavering constancy of this group, during all the years of their orphanage, is noteworthy.
29 A subtle thread seems to connect this doctrinal episode in Poland and Transylvania with the sporadic band of heretics whose experiences at Heidelberg have been related in the previous volume (v. supra, vol. i, p. 258 ff). After escaping from prison in the Palatinate, Neuser fled for freedom to Poland, where under guidance of one of the ministers he reached Kraków on the same day as Sommer, also a religious exile, and thence the two went on together to Kolozsvár, where Neuser is said to have made such an impression that when he left, the brethren bought his manuscripts for a considerable sum. Fearing arrest here by spies of the Emperor, he sought refuge at Constantinople, where Palaeologus met him (cf. Lubieniecius, Historia, pp. 198–200). Neuser claimed to have been the first to urge that Christ should not be invoked in prayer, and his brief stay at Kolozsvár fell at about the time when (so it was said at Dávid’s trial) the non-invocation doctrine was first broached there. Glirius (alias Vehe), another of the Heidelberg group, was also a teacher at Kolozsvár under or soon after Palaeologus (cf. Possevino, Transilvania, pp. 104, 136). The whole of the controversy in both countries may therefore with some show of probability be traced back to Neuser as its fountain-head. Palaeologus, who had thus far been on intimate terms with both Biandrata and Dávid, returned to Poland before the flame burst out at Kolozsvár For fuller account of Sommer and Palaeologus, cf. Uzoni, Historia, i, 456–461.
32 A work of Mélius published in 1570 at Debreczen (Az egész Szent Irásból, etc.) shows non-adoration as already current. Cited by Ferencz Kanyaró, ‘Krisztus nem-imádás tana 1570-ben’ (Doctrine of the non-adoration of Christ in 1570), Keresztény Magvetö, xxx (1895), 310; id., Unitáriusok p. 99.
34 Ideoque per ilium et in nomine illius accedimus ad Patrem, et per illum et una cum ipso invocamus patrem, agnoscentes quod Pater omnia illi dederit, et ipse nobis omnia confert. Cf. Uzoni, op. cit., i, 376 f; Lampe, Historia, p. 147 1; also following the preface of Sommer’s book above cited.
35Quem colimus, et invocamus post Patrem, juxta ipsius praeceptum, et scriptam nobis ab Apostolis regulam, qui ilium invocarunt non tanquam Altissimum, sed tanquam illius filium; liber ii, caput iv, p. EEiib. The same confession is in Dávid’s Refutatio scripti Petri Melii (Albae Juliae, 1567), following the preface.
37 Quem et adoramus et osculamur et colimus; Lampe, Historia, p. 227, A year or two later Dávid would seem, however, still to be wavering on the subject. In his Az egy Attya Istennec . . . Istenségekröl (Of the deity of the one God the Father) Kolozsvár, 1571, he says (pp. AAaib, BBbiiia, b), Scripture commands us to pray to the Father through Christ . . . It is wrong to pray to the man Christ, because God says, Isa. xliii, that his honor should not be given to another; . . . else we become idolaters . . . The man Christ can not be prayed to, because he is not God in essence, and because he is not God eternal, and not creator of heaven and earth.
38 Adorat is qui corpus aut animum reverenter alicui inclinat, et coram eo venerabundus procumbit, etiamsi nihil ab eo petat. Invocat autem is qui, in necessitate constitutus, aut aliquid percupiens, confidenter alienan opem et benignitatem implorat; Socinus, Opera, ii, 757, repeated in i, 401; cf. also i, 57–61,and Valentinus Smalcius, De divinitate Jesu Christi (Racoviae, 1608), p. 141.
42 The primary source for this episode is the Defensio Francisci Davidis in negotio de non invocando Jesu Christi in precibus, said to have been compiled by Palaeologus and Francis Dávid the younger (Socinus, Opera, ii, 709), published first at Basel, where the younger David was a student, 1581, and then at Kolozsvár (?), 1582. It contains the written discussion between Dávid and Biandrata, the judgment of the Polish churches on the writings submitted to them, and a confutation of the same by Palaeologus, in which is inserted a writing addressed to him by brethren in Transylvania who took Dávid’s side. This last is passionately partisan, and needs to be carefully checked by Socinus’s Epistola Dedicatoria prefixed to his De Jesu Christi lnvocatione disputato (Opera, ii, 709–712). Later authorities are Miles, Würgengel, pp. 118–134 (who strangely dates the matter in the time of John Sigismund!, Bod, Historia, i, 430–435 and Uzoni, Historia, i, 242–255.
43 Partisans of Dávid in writing somewhat later to Palaeologus (Scriptum Fratrum Transylvanorum, in Defensio, p. 239, also quoted in Bod, Historta, i, 436) stated that the occasion of the whole trouble lay in the fact that Biandrata had been guilty of conduct seriously involving his private character, and that he, supposing that this had come to Dávid’s knowledge, felt so humiliated that he determined to bring about Dávid’s ruin, and to this end formed a deep plot to involve him in the crime of innovation. Such a sensational charge, brought forward some three years later by embittered enemies in the course of heated religious controversy, and not supported by any other evidence, is certainly open to suspicion of resting on gossipy rumor rather than on proved fact. But even if the charge be provisionally admitted as true, it is hardly adequate to account for the chain of events that are in question. There were older and far deeper causes at work; for as we have seen, ever since the death of John Sigsimund there had been increasing signs foreboding that sooner or later the Unitarian church would have to face the charge of innovation.
50 Socinus writing some seventeen years later says that Biandrata had summoned him from Base!; but this seems to be a mistake. The time required for a letter to go and Socinus to come would have been too great. Cf. Socinus, Opera, ii, 711.
53 Uzoni, i, 244, relays a story that Biandrata now tried to get Dávid removed from his office as chief pastor of the Kolozsvár church, and that when reproached for this he threatened to have Dávid condemned as an innovator at a Diet to be held at Kolozsvár at Martinmas But the story does not hang together well. Socinus declared that no such Diet was held at all, and the official records mention none. Cf. Socinus, Opera, ii, 710.
60 Several times mentioned in this connection are Demetrius Hunyadi, who was soon to succeed Dávid as Superintendent, Stephen Szatmár, Stephen Basilius, and Johańnes Eppel. Cf. Uzoni, Historia, i, 337.
61 Legend later magnified this conference into a synod of fifty ministers convoked by Biandrata, and made Socinus a participant in it; which Socinus flatly denied. Cf. Defensio, p. 244; Bod, Historia, i, 438; Socinus, Opera, ii, 710 f.
63 It was later reported that Socinus was one of these, but he denied this, saying that he did not go to Torda at all, being at the time ill at Kolozsvár. Cf. Defensio, p. 249; Bod, Historja, i, 440; Socinus, Opera, ii, 710.
65 Cf. Defensio, pp. 3–120; Socinus, Opera, ii, 713–766. See further pp. 767–803 containing Socinus’s later disputation with Christian Francken on the same subject, and further items of the discussion with Dávid.
67Judicium ecclesiarum Polonicarum de causa Francisci Davidis in quaestione de vera hominis Jesu Christi filii Dei viventis invocatione (Claudiopoli, 1579). Dated Belzyce, August 24, 1579, signed by Witrelin (Defensio, p. 200). It is not only the decision of the Polish brethren, for it gives at great length the argument from Scripture on which it is based; Defensio, pp. 121–219, followed by an even more elaborate Confutatio by Palaeologus, pp. 220–408. Cf. Reformacja w Polsce (Kraków), vii (1936), 30.
68The sources for the account of Dávid’s trial now to follow are Defensio, pp. 251–273; reprinted in Bod, Historia, i, 445–450; Miles, Würgengel, pp. 122–535; Uzoni, Historia, i, 248–253; Magyar Emlékek, iii, 22–29.
69 Lucas Trauzner stood loyally by his father-in-law to the end of the trial, and narrowly missed having to share his sentence, but he managed to escape and fled to Baranya County beyond the Danube, where he was safe under the Turkish government. He there practiced his profession as a lawyer, but after 24 years he ventured in 1604 to return to Transylvania, when he was arrested and imprisoned for seven months at Déva. Upon professing to accept the Catholic faith he won Basta’s indulgence and was released. He then returned to Kolozavár and resumed the practice of his profession. Having presumably renounced the Catholic faith he finally became counselor and presiding judge under Prince Sigismund Rákóczi in 1607. Cf. Uzoni, Historia, ii, 627.
73 Cf. Socinus, loc. cit.; Uzoni, Historia, i, 252–260. In 1901 a memorial to Dávid was erected by Unitarians of Europe and America within the ruined walls of the castle at Déva; but it waslater destroyed at the time of the Romanian occupation.
74 His apologia is found in the Epistola Dedicatoria prefixed to his writing, De Jesu Christi Invocatione, which denies various false charges or misstatements in the Defensio. Socinus urged Biandrata to publish a confutation of the latter as soon as it appeared, but nothing came of it. He then urged the Polish Brethren to publish a reply; but when they learned that he had written that there is no express command about invoking Christ, and that though we may invoke him yet we are not bound to do so, they took offence and would not publish his work. As others still urged publication it was finally done in 1595 at the expense of a friend. Cf. Socinus, Operas ii, 709 f; Robert Spears, ‘Faustus Socinus and Francis Dávid,’ Monthly Repository of Theology (London), xiii (1818), 382–385.
1 Rövid magyarázat miképpen az Antichristus az igaz isrenröl való tudományt meghomályositotta, etc. (Brief exposition of how the Antichrist has obscured the true knowledge of God), Albae Juliae, 1567. Facsimile reprint, Kolozsvár, 1910, with appendix on the theology of Francis Dávid, by George Boros.
2 Dávid’s teaching about Jesus is most fully given in his Rövid Útmutatás, and in the Confession which he offered near the end of his life at the time of his preliminary trial before the Diet at Torda in April, 1579. Cf. Johannes Sommerus, Refutatio scripti Petri Carolii (Ingolstadii, 1582), following the preface; also in Uzoni, Historia, i, 247 f, See also Boros’s essay appended to Rövid maagyarázat cited above.
7 Kárádi’s letter was dated Nov. 9, while Dávid died Nov. 15. If the date of the letter is taken as Old Style, which was still prevalent in Turkish dominions, it could fall four days after the other date. As Temesvár was only some 75 miles west of Déva, there was sufficient time for the news to pass. Text in Uzoni, Historia, i, 260–264.
22 Opera, ii, 538 a. Cf. Uzoni, Historia, i, 481–485; Jakab, Adat, passim; Burian, Dissertatio, pp. 275–288; Epistolae et Acta, i, 210; ii, 30, 53; Benkó, Transsilvania, ii, 216; Leonardus Rubenus, De idolatria (Coloniae, 1597), p. 71; Illia, Ortus, p. 38; Haner, Historia, p. 304; Portrait in Kanyar6, Unitáriusok, p. 43; and in Vincenzo Malacarne, Commentario.. . Giorgio Biandrata, etc. di (Padova, 1814).
31 Cf. Akta metryki koronnej . . . Stefana Batorego, 1576–1586 (Records of the crown Archives of S. B.), ed. Pawinski (Warszawa, 1882), Żródło Dziejowe, xi, 291–295; also in Pápai, Rudus, p. 157 f; Uzoni, Historia, i, 268; Lampe, Historia, p. 313. If Pápai’s version is authentic in using the name Unitarii (so also Illia, Ortus, p. 68) where other versions have Arii, it is perhaps the earliest documentary use of the name.
32This document is the more interesting for the evidence it gives that the Unitarians were still a party to be seriously taken into account. In the metropolis of the country at Kolozsvár they were strongly predominant.
33 Cf. Magyar Emlékek, iii, 248–257, 100; Uzoni, Historia, i, 268, 208; Lampe Historia, pp. 314–327. See also Relatio brevis ejectionis Societatis Jesu e Transilvania, in Epistolae et Acta, ii, 254–263; Bod, Historia, i, 458–466.
40 Cf. Bethlen, Historia, iii, 439 f, 459–487; Uzoni, Historia, i, 209 f; Bod, Historia, i, 468 f. Before a year had passed, Sigismund realizing that this treacherous act had covered his name with deep infamy, bitterly repented of it, saying that he had not ordered it of his own will, but had only permitted it after being incessantly urged thereto by his two chief political advisers, Francis Geszti and Stephen Bocskai, who must bear the chief blame. Cf. Bethlen, Historia, iii, 554 f.
47 Cf. Szabó, Könyvtár, i, 222; ii, 77, The most important works controverting it were: Benedictus Szent Király, Vindicatio locorum Veteris Tes tamenti, etc. (Marpurgi,1619); Theodorus Thummius, Controversia . . . adversum G. Eniedinum (Francofurti, 1620); Nyilas István Melotai, Speculum Trinitatis (Debreczen, 1622); Abraham Calovius, Theologia Naturalis (Lipsiae, 1646); Justus Feuerbornius, Anti-Eniedinum (Giessae, 1654,1658); Paulus P. Jász-Berényi, Examen doctrinae Ariano-Socininae (Londini, 1662); Johannes Henricus Bisterfeld, De uno Deo (Lugduni Batavorum, 1639); Ambrosius de Peńalosa, Opus egregium de Christi . . . divinitate . . . contra Eniedinum (Viennae, 1635).
Click here to open the frame set built to read this document.
This page was last modified
Sunday 12 November 2006.