New Page

Mihály Balázs:
THE BEGINNINGS OF TRANSYLVANIAN ANTITRINITARIANISM (1566--1571)
FROM SERVET TO PALAEOLOGUS (THE BEGINNINGS OF TRANSYLVANIAN
ANTITRINITARIANISM 1566--1571)
FROM THE MOVEMENT TOWARDS A TOLERANT CHURCH (THE RISE OF TRANSYLVANIAN
ANTITRINITARIANISM 1566--1571)
BETWEEN RADICAL DOGMACRITICISM AND ANABAPTISM (THE RISE OF
TRANSYLVANIAN ANTITRINITARIANISM 1566--1571)
RADICAL REFORMATION ON THE FRINGES OF EUROPE (THE RISE OF TRANSYLVANIAN
ANTITRINITARIANISM 1566--1571)
THE BIRTH OF THE TRANSYLVANIAN MODEL OF ANTITRINITARIANISM (1566--1571)
A UNIQUE WAY OF ANTITRINITARIANISM:
THE TRANSYLVANIANS IN THE 1560’S
1

PREFACE
It is a well-known fact that two regions of Eastern Central Europe, Poland and Transylvania,
played outstandingly important roles in the history of sixteenth and seventeenth century
Antitrinitarianism. It is another fact that the developments in Poland are much better known for European
scholars of the subject than those in Transylvania. One of the most important causes of this deplorable
situation might be that Hungarian scholarship in the last century has not exerted continued and organized
efforts in order to make Transylvanian developments known for international scholarship. While in
Poland Stanislaw Kot and his disciples, then members of the younger generation regarded it as their
important task to elaborate what role Polish heterodoxy and particularly seventeenth century Socinianism
had played in the history of European thought, researches in Hungary could be described as introverted.
However, some changes are visible in this area. The intent to change is demonstrated by starting
the series Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum, as well as the volumes of Bibliotheca Dissidentium published so
far, and the present work intends to be part of the same effort. Thus, its most important goal is to offer a
summary of the earliest period of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism that contains the results of the
international researches of the last decades and also all that Hungarian scholarship has produced.
This alone would justify concentrating attention on the late 1560s, that is to say, on the years that
saw the rise of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism; but this decision is supported by further scientific
historical considerations.1 Antal Pirnát's monograph in German,2 which demonstrated on a so far
completely unknown manuscript material the activities of the Antitrinitarians in Transylvania, has had a
profound influence of subsequent studies. The work focussed attention on the trend that unfolded in the
1570s, called dogmatically radical in the literature on the subject, source publications and treatments of
the representatives of this trend (J. Sommer, J. Palaeologus, M. Vehe-Glirius, Ferenc Dávid, Ch.
Francken) following in suit in great numbers.3 These works have considerably enriched and, on a number
of points, modified the statements of Pirnát's book, which was the first to describe those so far unknown
records. The bulk of these works concentrated, as a matter of course, on the 1570s and 1580s, and thus the
period of the development of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism when its products could be published in
print and distributed for the European public was neglected. Let us add that this was the period when
Ferenc Dávid, the most important representative of the movement in Transylvania, wrote most of his
works.
It is no wonder, then, that the abundant literature on the subject has failed even to ask the question
that the present work is endeavouring to answer. For what I have tried to examine is why Transylvania
became the centre of this dogmatic radicalism, and whether the Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism of the
1560s displays any peculiarities that could explain this phenomenon.
What particularly justifies for me the formulation of this question is that I do not find the picture
emerging from the studies that do treat the Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism of the 1560s satisfactory. To
put it somewhat simply, we can discern two tendencies. One can see no difference between the ecclesia
minor in Poland and the Antitrinitarianism unfolding in other parts of Europe and the Transylvanian
developments of the period under discussion. According to this view, the Transylvanian phenomena
smoothly fit into the current called Anabaptistic Antitrinitarianism, without exciting dissimilarities or
local peculiarities.4 The other, radically different view, on the other hand, puts the emphasis on
continuity, essentially projecting the image of the 1570s, without any problems, back to the period
discussed below.5 The great problem of this view is that it cannot handle the fact that it was precisely in
Transylvania that the most important Latin works of the so-called Anabaptist Antitrinitarianism were
published in print.
2

In the work below I am trying to outline a third position. The crucial point of my approach is the
simultaneous consideration and comparative examination of the developments in Poland and in
Transylvania.6 In addition to the Latin works, I have also examined the works written in Polish and
Hungarian, arriving at my conclusions through analyzing them as well as other documents
(correspondence, synodal protocols) of the contacts. This does not mean, of course, that the present work
covers all the aspects of Antitrinitarianism in Poland and in Transylvania between 1566 and 1571. Nor
have I been able to undertake the detailed analysis of every opus, and I have left a number of issues (the
relationship between works in Latin and in Hungarian, their authors, etc.) unaccosted. I still believe,
however, that the documents discussed suggest the outlines of a picture, and though the emphasis on the
works discussed is evidently not without some arbitrariness, perhaps I can convince the reader of their
special importance.
In analyzing the works I have tried to use a combination of chronological and thematic principles.
The works deemed the most important are investigated in relation to four topics (christology, baptismal
doctrine, socio-ethical views and religious tolerance), without neglecting the changes that have taken
place in the meantime. Since in several cases I have to consider the same works from different aspects,
this method sometimes leads to repetitions. It has the advantage, however, that the reader will, in the end,
have a coherent view of the dogmatic issue in question. All this is complemented with the discussion of
two problems: I elaborate, in a separate chapter, on the chiliasm of Ferenc Dávid's Rövid magyarázat, and
I thought De regno Christi, which is undoubtedly one of the most important opus of the period, also
deserved a chapter of its own.
The order of the chapters is naturally not accidental: I deliberately start with abstract theological
questions, approaching more pragmatical topics. Apart from wishing to demonstrate that the answer to
any practical question (such as whether Christian men can hold offices) can be understood from the whole
of Antitrinitarian theology only, I have also attempted to apply a possible model of socio-historical and
sociological interpretation. The reader will probably notice that it is only at the end of chapters and
particularly in the last chapter that I undertake such explanations of certain phenomena. By that I again
wished to indicate the autonomy of the sphere of theology and to suggest that such interpretation is viable
not with single theological statements, but in the case of complete theological and especially derived
socio-ethical systems of views.
However, if simplifying interpretations can be avoided in this way, it should be endeavoured
because it is precisely the deficient consideration of local social and political conditions that have resulted
in fallacious interpretations in the case of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism. Therefore, it is also necessary
that this preface briefly outline the socio-political church-organizational situation that saw the rise of
Antitrinitarianism in Transylvania.7
The Principality of Transylvania, born in the middle of the sixteenth century, included two
regions. One of these was historical Transylvania, a part of Hungary with a relative autonomy already
during the previous centuries. This is also reflected in the etymology of the name itself: Erdaelv, Erdély,
that is the place beyond the woods, i.e. the area that lay beyond the mountains surrounding the Hungarian
plains. (The Rumanian term Ardeal is a verbal translation of the Hungarian, while the German
Siebenbürgen refers to the seven towns founded by Saxon immigrant colonists in the 12th century.) The
other territory was the so-called Partium, the term coming from the expression dominus Partium regni
Hungariae, and essentially including the region between the river Tisza and historical Transylvania.
The rise of this new state was the result of a process during which increasingly larger parts of the
central areas of historical Hungary were seized by the Turks thus making the disintegration of the
medieval Hungarian Kingdom inevitable. The major steps on the road towards the independent
principality were the following. The first decades after the defeat at Mohács (1526) saw the double royal
3

elections and the subsequent struggle between the two kings thus elected, both still holding a claim for the
whole country. At that time the realm had two crowned kings, Ferdinand Hapsburg and John of Szapolya,
but after the fall of Buda (1541) and the death of John of Szapolya (1540) the situation changed. The son
of John of Szapolya, John Sigismund already made a point of setting up the centres of his power in the
eastern half of the country, and was not crowned, either. He was only Johannes II. electus rex Hungariae,
and giving up even this title in 1570, he was content to be Princeps Transylvaniae et Partium Hungariae.
His successors held that title as well. Formally, the Principality of Transylvania was a vassal state of the
Turks, its princes ruling with the approval of the Sultan, but the Turks did not interfere with its internal
affairs and there was a possibility for a comparatively autonomous foreign policy as well.
The directions of the development of the Reformation and that of Antitrinitarianism within it were
significantly influenced by some of the important characteristics of the newly formed territory. What were
these characteristics? First of all it will have to be emphasized that the Transylvanian Principality was
ethnically extremely colourful. Three ethnic groups, the Hungarians, the Saxons and the Rumanians were
approximately equally represented in the population which numbered about one million. Political life,
however, was the field of action for three nations only, in the medieval sense of the word: the
Hungarians (Magyars), that is the nobility of the region; the Szeklers (Székelys), an ethnically and
linguistically somewhat distinct group of the Hungarians, holding on to its archaic internal structure and
guarding the borders of the country, and finally the Saxons. Thus the ethnical and political groups did not
correspond, and the Rumanians, who were mostly villeins, were -- like their Hungarian counterparts --
excluded from political life. There were very few Rumanian noblemen, and those Rumanian who
managed to get a title were soon integrated among the Hungarian nobility. There were significant
differences between the regions included into the new state as well. While in Partium the landed
aristocracy owned huge estates, the nobility of historical Transylvania had more modest properties. Also,
while Partium had rich and energetic market towns (oppida), (Lippa, Simánd, Békés, Szatmár,
Debrecen), those of historical Transylvania were much smaller. This will probably be explained by the
fact that the rich Transylvanian Saxon towns (Szeben, Brassó, Medgyes, Segesvár, Beszterce) did their
best to hinder the peasants' production for the market. Among the towns Kolozsvár must be separately
mentioned. This town, situated at the crossing of important trade routes and developing extremely
dynamically in the 15th and 16th centuries, became the intellectual centre of Transylvania. This was also
helped by the fact that the rich Saxon and Hungarian burgesses of the town created balanced institutions
that guaranteed equal rights for themselves and each other.
The fact that the ruling princes of Transylvania were all members of the aristocracy of Partium
meant that the weight of the central power was always secure in the life of the state. All this was reflected
in the peaceful course of the Reformation and its being directed from the top. The case of the bishopric of
Gyulafehérvár is one in point. The revenues and the palace of the bishopric, vacant since 1542 were
secularized by Act of Diet so that the centres of the new political power could be established. The new
principal power in the making thus vigorously contributed to the annihilation of the Catholic hierarchy
with the logical consequence that the Transylvanian ruling Princes took over the secular provostship of
the developing Protestant Churches. Although the new power of the prince was thus basically interested
in supporting the ideas of the Reformation or at least deep-going ecclesiastical reforms, it would not have
been enough in itself to guarantee the victory of Protestantism. This purpose, however, met the efforts of
the various groups of Transylvanian society, inspired by the causes well-known all over Europe. This
meeting resulted in the rather remarkable fact that in the territory of the Transylvanian Principality the
Reformation was victorious peacefully, without major upheavals. That is what happened to Lutheranism,
which came in gradually more and more intensive waves during the 1530s and 1540s, spreading first
among the Saxons. They, by the way, have adhered to Lutheranism ever since. Lutheranism was but an
episode among the Hungarian speaking population since in the 1550s more and more of them joined
various Helvetian movements. In the beginning they followed Zwingli, then in the 1560s it was rather
Bullinger and, to a lesser extent, Calvin whose influence could be felt. It seems that the boroughs of
Partium were particularly ahead in the reception of Helvetian trends, but the majority of the nobility
4

joined them as well. By the mid-1560s the Catholics having become a negligible minority, they could be
found in insignificant numbers only on the estates of a few Catholic magnates (István Báthory, the wouldbe
ruling Prince of Transylvania and King of Poland being one of them) and among the Szeklers.
Given the above situation, the Transylvanian Diets could do nothing but codify the constantly
changing situation, and create an ecclesiastic organizational framework that would greatly assist the rise
of Antitrinitarianism as well. The dissolved Catholic bishoprics were replaced by Protestant bishoprics
organized not on confessional but on territorial-national basis. This meant that the Saxon bishop had
jurisdiction over all who lived in and around the Saxon towns whether they were Lutherans or Calvinists.
The bishop of the Hungarians wielded an equally wide authority over both Lutherans and Calvinists
living outside of the Saxon territories. All this was complemented with the right of the communities to
decide what denomination they wished to follow, which created a legal situation that was unique in
Europe. The third, explicitly Calvinist bishopric was created in Debrecen, in the centre of Partium. This
was a very interesting formation since it included areas in the north-east that were part of the Hungarian
Kingdom, and had congregations in the territories under Turkish rule.
5

1961.
1. For scientific historical surveys with bibliographies, see: Bálint KESER_--Waclaw
URBAN: Stan badan nad heterodosja na Wegrzech. In: Wokól dziejów i tradycji arianizmu. ed.
Lech SZCZUCKI. Warszawa 1971. 29--42. -- Valerio MARCHETTI: La storiografia ungherese
sul rapporto tra la critica antitrinitaria sozziniana e le origini dell'unitarismo transilvano del
Cinquecento. In: Archivio storico italiano CXXVIII. 1971. 361--405. -- Lech SZCZUCKI:
L'antitrinitarismo in Polonia (Tendenze della ricercha e prospettive). In: Movimenti ereticali in
Italia e in Polonia nei secoli XVI--XVII. Atti del convegno italo--polaco Firenze 22--24 settembre
1971, Firenze 1974. 5--25. -- Cesare VASOLI: Nuove ricerche sugli eretici italiani del
Cinquecento, In: RSI 87. 1975. 87--103. -- Bibliotheca Dissidentium. Répertoire des nonconformistes
religieux des seizieme et dix-septieme siecles. Edité par André SÉGUENNY en
collaboration avec Irena BACKUS et Jean ROTT. T. XII. Ungarländische Antitrinitarier. Baden-
Baden et Bouxwiller Editions Valentin Koerner. 1990. 17--28. (Mihály BALcZS)
2. Antal PIRNÁT, De Ideologie der Siebenbürger Antitrinitarier in den 1570er Jahren. Budapest
3. See the volumes* on M. Vehe-Glirius and Ch. Francken in Bibliotheca Dissidentium. (T. XI.
157--209. -- Christopher I. BURCHILL és T. XIII. -- Jacek WIJACZKA), work on those on the others is
in progress.
4. The monograph of Delio CANTIMORI: Eretici italiani del Cinquecento. Firenze 1939. was
written in this spirit, and this is the dominant tendency in Italian scholarship: Aldo STELLA, Dall'
anabattismo al socinianesimo nel Cinquecento veneto Ricerche storiche. Padova 1967. -- Idem:
Anabattismo e antitrinitarismo in Italia nel XVI secolo Nuove ricerche storiche. Padova 1969. -- Antonio
ROTONDO, Verso la crisi dell' antitrinitarismo italiano. Giorgio Biandrata e Johann Sommer. In A. R.
Studi e ricerche di storia ereticale italiana del Cinquecento. Torino 1974. 161--223.
5. This view is reflected in Pirnát's book mentioned above, as well as in Massimo FIRPO:
Antitrinitari nell'Europa orientale del' 500 Nuovi testi di Szymon Budny, Niccolo Paruta e Jacopo
Paleologo. Firenze 1977.
6. For previous attempts, see: Gabriel ADRIcNYI: Polnische Einflusse auf die Reformation und
Gegenreformation in Ungarn, in: Ungarn-Jahrbuch, 4. 1972. 61--71. Lech SZCZUCKI: Polish and
Transylvanian Unitarianism in the Second Half of the 16th Century. In: Antitrinitarianism in the Second
Half of the 16th Century. eds. Róbert DcN and Antal PIRNcT. Bp.--Leiden 1982. 231--241. és George H.
WILLIAMS: Uniterschiede zwischen dem polnischen und dem siebenbürgish-unitarischen Unitarismus
und ihre Ursachen, In: Der Einfluß der Unitarier auf die amerikanische Geistesgeschichte Vorträge der
ersten deutschen wissenschaftlichen Tagung zur Unitarismusforschung vom 13-14. Juni 1985 in
Hamburg. Hrsg. Wolfgang DEPPERT, Werner ERDT, Aart DE GROOT. Frankfurt am Main 1990. 33--
57.
7. For the most recent summary, see Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens ed. Béla KÖPECZI.
Budapest 1989. 241--400.
6

Contents
I. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF TRANSYLVANIAN ANTITRINITARIANS IN THE LATE 1560S
Intellectual orientation in the first phase
A joint Polish--Hungarian Antitrinitarian opus and Ferenc Dávid's Hungarian works
Tactical considerations and prophetic resilience in Dávid's first Hungarian work
Differences and parallels in the vernacular propaganda in Transylvania and in Poland
Hermeneutical meditation and Christological foundations in another Hungarian opus
Fausto Sozzini's reception and Transylvanian Antitrinitarian Christology
II. THE BAPTISMAL DEBATES IN THE LATE 1560S
The first move towards antipaedobaptism
The antipaedobaptist reception of Servetion Anabaptism
The Transylvanian reinterpretation of a Flemish Anabaptist opus
III. REINTERPRETED RESTITUTIO CHRISTIANISMI AS MORAL PHILOSOPHICAL
FOUNDATION
IV. THE SOURCES AND THE SPECIFICS OF DcVID'S CHILIASM
V. THE SOCIAL ETNICS OF THE ANTITRINITARIANS
"As much as possible" -- Imitatio Christi in the interpretation of Transylvanian Antitrinitarians
Analogies and differences in the thought of Transylvanian and Polish Antitrinitarians
VI. TOLERANCE OR CHURCH ORGANIZATION? AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE
DILEMMA
CONCLUSION
List of abbreviations
SERVES'S +CHRISTIANISMI RESTITUTIL" AND+DE REGNO CHRISTI"
(Table of correspondences and differences)
APPENDICS
NOTAE MEMBRORUM REGNI CHRISTI
7

I.
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF TRANSYLVANIAN ANTITRINITARIANS IN THE LATE 1560S
Intellectual orientation in the first phase
The framework described in the Preface significantly determined both the way Antitrinitarianism
rose and unfolded during the period under discussion.1 It must be noted, however, that we have only
sporadic data on the so-called latent period before 1566 and/or the antecedents. Therefore, it will
immediately be a moot point to what extent the movement of Tamás Arany, who appeared with his
Antitrinitarian spiritualistic ideas at the end of 1561, can be regarded as the forerunner of Transylvanian
Antitrinitarianism.2 His views can be inferred indirectly only from a refuting tract by Péter Melius Juhász,
Calvinist bishop of Debrecen, but recent studies have clearly established that his dogmatic system was
different from the Antitrinitarianism unfolding at Kolozsvár, and could be compared mainly with that of
Camillo Renato. Anyway, it is strange that the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians kept total silence about him,
and no matter how much, as we shall see, they liked naming their forerunners, Arany's name cannot be
found in any of their works.
The most mysterious evidence of the latent period is contained in a letter from Ian Maczynski,
secretary to Mikolaj Czarny Radziwill to Stanislaw Hosius on December 8, 1564.3 In that letter
Maczynski recalls the contents of the epistles written to him from Transylvania by Blandrata and Ferenc
Dávid. According to those, the Protestant churches in Transylvania and in Hungary rejected the technical
terms of the Trinity, and even John Sigismund himself joined this view. Although recent literature on the
subject is justified in considering this statement 'overoptimistic'4 since John Sigismund would join the
Antitrinitarians much later, probably in 1569, the information concerning Ferenc Dávid should still make
one pause. The least that can be claimed on the basis of it is that well before the overt appearance of
Antitrinitarianism these ideas had been discussed in the circles closely surrounding Blandrata. This would
seem to be supported by the evidence testifying to the sojourn of Blandrata's Italian colleagues in
Transylvania. Both Gentile and Gianpaolo Alciati are certainly known to have paid visits to Transylvania
after April, 1564, and Géza Kathona thinks it most probably happened in the second half of 1565.5 There
must have been fiery debates at Kolozsvár in 1565 since a decision of the town council dated December
21, 1565 mentions that recently many had appeared with false biblical interpretations, and these people
would be allowed to stay in town only if they could defend their views against the preachers.6 It is also
these discussions that the formation of Lukács Egri's views should be attributed to. He left Kolozsvár,
where he had been active as a preacher since the late 1550s, in the spring-summer of 1565. In his native
town Eger, outside the boundaries of Transylvania, he started preaching in a Antitrinitarian spirit,
obviously under the influence of the ideas he had picked up at Kolozsvár.7
The open appearance had thus been preceded by serious workshop activities and intellectual
simmering, but it is the experiences Blandrata had gained at his previous stations, at Geneva and Poland
that will have to be regarded as most important of all. With these experiences Blandrata first of all wanted
to demonstrate that the traditional Trinitarian terminology had no origins in the Bible. He was of course
well aware that the refusal of the +philosophical" terms meant questioning the whole of the traditional
dogma, but he did not stress this point at all in the first period. Instead, he placed emphasis on biblicism,
regarded as the common achievement of the Reformation, and it was by referring to biblicism that he
argued for the consistent assertion of +sola scriptura". Of course, neither he nor his comrades could do
without philosophical concepts, but it became possible to use these only when refuting the theses of their
opponents or explaining their own statements. They, however, avoided non-biblical terms when
formulating their views as a credo.
8

They used this argument at the Synod of Torda in March 1566, and then at the religious dispute at
Gyulafehérvár in April. Géza Kathona, who has analyzed the documents produced during these polemics
most thoroughly, has pointed out that the positive manifestations of the Antitrinitarians had a peculiar
dualism.8 This could be seen in that, on the one hand, they preached the tritheism of Gribaldi-Gentile as a
minimal program and, on the other, transcending it in some cases they formulated the Christology of
Servet. However, if meeting with too intense resistance, they backed off from the latter and it was this
that made a unique fact in the history of the European Reformation possible, namely that in the summer
of 1566 a Antitrinitarian version of the Heidelberg catechism was published. The Catechismus
Ecclesiarum Dei and the Sententia Concors9 in its appendix, as Géza Kathona has pointed out, were the
result of a compromise that satisfied both Ferenc Dávid and Blandrata, the leaders of the Antitrinitarians,
and Péter Melius Juhász, who wished to terminate the further unfolding of the movement. At the same
time, it turns out clearly from the dedication of the work that John Sigismund, elected King of Hungary
had played an important role as well in bringing the compromise together. The ruler of the freshly formed
partial kingdom, fighting with the Hapsburgs for its survival, intended to diminish the religious
controversies that were dividing the society in his realm.
We can complete the picture drawn by Géza Kathona by adding, even at this early phase, a third
version of Antitrinitarianism, different from Servet's doctrine and associated with the name of Lelio
Sozzini, which can be proved to have definitely existed at the time with a letter from Blandrata to
Grzegorz Pawel, one of the leaders of the Polish Antitrinitarians. Certainly, the only way to understand
the ideology of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism in the 1560-70s is to focus on this new Christology,
labelled with the name of Lelio Sozzini and try to trace the process of its acquisition accompanied by
internal and external struggles. Our intention is thus to elaborate in more detail Antal Pirnát's statement
that Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, which rose much later than that in Poland, developed faster than
the latter and the ideas that appeared successively in Poland were present nearly simultaneously in
Transylvania.10
It has been mentioned above that the first evidence for the presence of Lelio Sozzini's Christology
in Transylvania is Blandrata's letter to Grzegorz Pawel and other leaders of the Polish Antitrinitarians,
dated September 21, 1565. This now famous document, although often cited in the literature on the
subject, has not been utilized properly with express regard to the developments in Transylvania. It is already
a cliche that the goal the Italian doctor wished to achieve with this cunningly formulated epistle was
to have the Antitrinitarians in Poland realize the contradictions of the Logos doctrine and then deny the
preexistence of Christ. It is interesting at the same time that before summing up his letter he mentions the
events in Transylvania. Since this passage contains a number of so far neglected facts, it is worth quoting
at some length:
+I am sending you the book of a learned pastor, who although hesitating and not speaking to the
point, would like to know the truth and to publish his writing, which, however, I cannot suffer because it
falls short of its goal and fails to explain the point. There are many others, well prepared persons, who expect
of you nothing but a frank and public confession with respect to Trinity and that you put forth your
views, especially on these doctrines so you can thus unite in the Lord on that basis. Everybody is begging
you to decide on the points below and then make your decision known in a public letter:
First: Are the teachings of Petrus Lombardus, Scotus, Thomas and the pope on the Trinity to be
discarded and is it allowed to preach about a Trinity which is different from the one seen and heard at the
Jordan?
Second: Rejecting all other confessions and the four councils, does the one which they call (do
you?) Apostolic suffice for all pious and moderate Christians?»
Third: Is our one God the father of Christ and not that one essence with three persons residing in
9

it? Elaborate your statement in some detail and speak briefly or moderately on what you reject.
Fourth: When God is mentioned in the Scriptures without any further definition, is it the essence
and the three persons together that is meant or rather the Father or the Son separately?
Fifth: Is Christ, inasmuch as he is God, god by nature or by communication? Is he, in fact, God by
God or God by himself?
Sixth: They require a declaration about how Christ is God according to the Scripture.
Seventh: Should the Word, which in the beginning was with God, be regarded according to the
Scripture as the existing Son God and as one who has been born since eternity or as one who existed
merely in God's predestination? And if he is to be said to have been existing in reality at that time, does
that not mean that two sons are made? Furthermore it is asked where this is taught manifestly in the Scriptures
and they want unambiguous passages in the Scriptures, undistorted by human ingenuity.
You should send these to me or to the brethren as soon as possible when you have consulted with
your brethren, because I have adjourned the general synod summoned for this purpose. Please, do not let
the brethren down. This is the time for them to come to an agreement and unite. Please, act diligently, and
send all your writings with a few copies of The Tower of Babel, and write to Francis David as well. I
would gladly let you have the Servet, but Mr. Prosper, who has all my books, is not here."11
Unfortunately, the information Blandrata gives us is not sufficient to find out who the learned
pastor is whose book he was sending and who, apparently, was wavering, not knowing how far he could
go in his Antitrinitarianism. It should be emphasized, however, that the Italian heretic is asking Grzegorz
Pawel to answer the questions to him or to the brethren (ad fratres), and thus it would seem justified to
assume that the theological issues itemized above interested the whole leadership of the Antitrinitarianism
organizing underground at that time, and Blandrata was not merely sharing his personal problems with
the Polish brothers. (Nor does the text leave any doubt whatsoever that he is urging the Poles mainly at
the stimulation of Ferenc Dávid.) These points thus can be interpreted as the fundamental questions of
Antitrinitarianism, which was about to step out into the open. The first six contain no surprises, reflecting
the same Tritheist-Servetian ideology that other documents of the first phase of Antitrinitarianism
contain. The request to send the definitely Tritheist work of the Polish Antitrinitarian entitled Turris
Babel along with his other writings is completely in accord with that. This in any case would clearly
indicate that the Transylvanians were already making good use of the experience of the Poles while still
looking for arguments.
The seventh point, on the other hand, makes it quite clear that the ideas of Dávid and his associates
cannot be described with Tritheism only and that it was at least problematic for them whether the
Word was the son of God born from eternity and whether accepting this did not mean the making up of
two sons. Thus it cannot be doubted that -- although the part of the document which can be regarded as
Blandrata's more personal message discusses more explicitly the question of Christ's preexistence -- it
was not only his problem but the wave of the development of Antitrinitarianism characteristic of the
1560s touched other figures of the movement as well. It was the opening up of this wider perspective that
enabled the very first document of the openly appearing Antitrinitarianism not to stop at Tritheism. It was
thus only a matter of time and they would come forward into the open with the denial of Christ's preexistence.
It happened quite soon, too, since as early as by the autumn of 1566 it had become clear that the
compromise concluded around the middle of that year under pressure from ruling Prince John Sigismund
was impossible to sustain. There has been a debate in the literature on the subject on whether it was Péter
Melius Juhász, bishop of the Calvinists in Transtibiscum or Ferenc Dávid, bishop of the Hungarian
10

churches in Transylvania that formally dissolved the agreement.12 According to Géza Kathona, Ferenc
Dávid did it by convoking those who agreed with him to a separate synod at Torda on February 13, 1567.
Péter Melius Juhász responded by summoning his followers to a synod in Debrecen. It is possible that the
synods took place in that order, but Antal Pirnát is right when it comes to the crux of the matter. For he
correctly emphasizes that Melius, who probably knew very little of European developments, set out on a
dangerous road when consenting in December 1566 to dropping the traditional technical terms of the
Trinity. Returning to these was a much more obvious sign of the breaking of the agreement than the steps
that Dávid and his comrades took along the road cleared from +exotic" expressions. Ferenc Dávid and his
followers exploited this fact, too, often mentioning that the agreement had been broken by their
opponents, who had again taken up the +exotic" expressions not found in the Bible.
Unfortunately, we have very little to go by as far as documents are concerned as to how Dávid and
his associates were progressing on the road of Antitrinitarianism from the middle of 1566 through
September 1567. All we have is a few theses of the polemic between Ferenc Dávid and Péter Károlyi, the
rector of Kolozsvár,13 and the works in which Melius and his followers debated with the Antitrinitarians.
What becomes clear from these documents, so important in the history of the Calvinist church (a shorter
[Latin]14 and a longer [Hungarian]15 confession and a book of canons)16 is that Melius and his friends
were at that time arguing mostly against Tritheism and/or the ideas of Michael Servet. There appeared,
however, a new element in the polemic. These writings reproach Ferenc Dávid and his associates for their
reluctance to use the word incarnatio. This procedure might be regarded as conforming to the earlier
agreement since the Bible does not contain the term incarnation. It should not be ignored, however, that
the content of biblical and non-biblical usage was constantly changing during the dogmatic debates. As it
will be shown later, incarnatio not yet being a term for Servet to avoid, the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians
using his texts were obliged to +correct" their master. Thus the fact that Dávid and his friends were
dropping this term already in the first half of 1567 can have two explanations. On the one hand, it is
possible that realizing the non-biblical nature of the term they came to this conclusion by themselves. On
the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that this procedure was the result of encountering the other
Antitrinitarian Christology represented by Lelio Sozzini since the denial of incarnation occupied a central
place in the doctrine of the Italian heretic. In the light of the developments to be discussed in more detail
below, I regard the latter explanation as more plausible, which also implies that Dávid and his friends
knew the views of Lelio Sozzini in one form or another as early as the first half of 1567. Naturally, it
would also appear from the above that all they were doing at that time was trying to build one element of
the recently encountered view into their system of ideas relying basically on Servet.
If the philosophy of the Antitrinitarians early in 1567, due to the lack of documents and also to
difficulties of interpretation, still seems rather obscure for us, the words from Dávid and his friends
radically changed this. They published no less than three works during the year 1567. These were the
following: Refutatio scripti Petri Melii [The refutation of the writing of Peter Melius],17 Rövid
magyarázat [Brief Explanation],18 and Rövid útmutatás [Brief Guidance].19 Obviously, the order of
publication will have to be established if we want to give an outline of how their propaganda changed.
We know for sure that their last publication in that year was Rövid útmutatás since its dedication is dated
December 28, 1567. The dedication of Refutatio scripti Petri Melii also contains an important date,
September 1, 1567. As it gives only the year, dating Rövid magyarázat more precisely can be
problematic. As far as I can see, a number of circumstances indicate that the Latin work preceded the one
in Hungarian. For the Latin argues with a short Latin confession from Debrecen dated to the beginning of
the year, countering it with the resolutions of the synod of the Antitrinitarians at Marosvásárhely. On the
other hand, as it will be mentioned below at the discussion of the baptismal debates, we hold that Rövid
magyarázat was written with a knowledge of, and carries on a deliberate polemic with, the Hungarian
confession of Melius published in August, 1567. So let us consider first Refutatio scripti Petri Melii.
The dedication (to be considered in detail below in a different respect) is followed in the book by
the lines addressed to the pious reader. It is there that we can read the interesting claim that since they are
11

completely absurd, Melius' arguments refute themselves and the reason Dávid and his friends are replying
is for those who are still weak in their faith. This was a clever polemical trick enabling them to preach the
new while maintaining the appearance of continuity. Four chapters follow: the first contains Melius' and
their own confessions, in the second they point out the contradictions in the confession of their opponent,
in the third Melius' arguments, and in the fourth Stancaro's views are refuted. Considerations of space will
not allow the discussion of the latter, and from the other chapters only those elements will be examined
that transcend the earlier views of Dávid and his friends.
Their confession is printed under the title Confessio vera de Triade Ministrorum Ecclesiae Dei in
Transilvania consentientium [The true confession of the ministers in agreement of God's church in
Transylvania]. This, also available in Hungarian in Dávid's Rövid magyarázat, leaves no doubt that its authors
were not only well versed in, but had virtually mastered, the Christology of Lelio Sozzini.
According to the confession, it is only from God the Father that all things are, he is the only creator of
heaven and earth, he is the only invisible God supreme above all, the only true God, the God and Father
of Christ.
It is well worth quoting the main points of the thesis concerning the Son:
+Furthermore we believe in our only Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things (Lk 2, Mt 1), conceived
in the Virgin's womb by the Holy Ghost, in whom God has revealed himself in these last days
(Heb 1).
We have never claimed that this Son of God is immortal or supreme to all or that he is the God
from whom are all things or that he is God by himself, but rather we believe that he is true God from the
true God, wise from the wise, creator from the creator and immortal by that immortal and independent
eternal God, to whom he is completely son and unto whom he will also be subject at the end of time and
not only in his one or other body (1Cor 15), and than whom the same Son said he was smaller (Jn 14).
We believe that he is equal and he is said to be so because the Father communicated to him his
divinity in its entirety, giving him all power in heaven and on earth, and wanted the angels and men to
worship him (Mt 28, Phil 2, Heb 1).
Thus we believe that Jesus Christ is the only born Son twice testified to by the Father from heaven
(Mt 3:17, Lk 3). And the one he once promised Adam from the seed of woman (Gen 1), the patriarches
from Abraham's loins (Gen 12, 18, 23, 26, and Acts 44:41), and David to come from his seed and of
whom only the predictions of all the prophets speak, and finally the one the apostles call the man (Acts 2,
1Tim 2), the second Adam (1Cor 15)... Thus it is of this visible Christ that we say that he is the Word
made flesh whom the Father said was his only begotten (Jn 1). Besides whom there is none else (Is 45),
the one mediator (1Tim 2), judge of the quick and the dead (2Tim 4), the one head of the church (Eph 5),
who is God blessed for ever (Rom 9), whom we worship, kiss and revere, and in whom we will for ever
trust according to the eternal commandment of the most High. Therefore, we confess with Paul (1Cor 2)
that we know not any thing save this crucified Jesus Christ."20
Perhaps it will be possible below to demonstrate that although the authors of the text had
+advanced" in mastering the views of Lelio Sozzini, interesting differences can be observed partly on
account of the gradual portioning and partly because of the more traditional interpretation.
Obviously, they accept the view that the word is Jesus Christ preaching the New Testament and,
in addition to ignoring the mystery of the incarnatio, they also severely condemn Melius for its
application: +And he interprets the sayings of the Apostles according to the whim of his own mind. God,
he says, was manifested in flesh that is the Word was incarnated and was made flesh: just behold how
sincerely he does that, and where in the Apostles can he find the word incarnation?"21
12

In Lelio Sozzini's Brevis explicatio in primum Joannis caput [Short explication of John 1] this is
based mainly on the fact that in John 1:14 he introduces the reading verbum caro fuit [the word was flesh]
for the reading verbum caro factum est [the word was made flesh] because in his view it is shown at a
number of places in the Scripture that the Greek word egeneto is to be translated fuit. He regards 1Jn 4:3
(And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God") as supporting
this interpretation. According to him, the Apostle saw in advance that the Antichrist would attempt to
have mankind believe in another Christ instead of the Man Christ, one who existed ante carnem [before
the flesh], therefore, he warned against the inventions of the Antichrist by using the expression in carne
[in the flesh] instead of in carnem [into the flesh].
It is clear from a number of Ferenc Dávid's utterances that he adopted the distinction between in
carne and in carnem. The interpretation of egeneto.=.fuit is, however, a different question. In that case he
accepted the solution which Lelio Sozzini obviously regards as secondary. This can be well illustrated by
comparing Sozzini's text introducing the second version with the sixth argument according to the
Transylvanian confession:
+I think it would not be absurd
for someone to interpret the expression
word made flesh not that the two were
united in one, or that one turned into the
other, but to take the supreme power
given to Christ to mean changing his
position and condition, to correspond
with the sense of Phil 2 and Is 53 about
the figure of God and the servant, and
with the following words of 2Cor 8 `that,
though he was rich, yet for your sakes he
became poor'"22
+It is not the second person or the eternal son
that was made flesh but the word-man Jesus Christ,
promised long ago, was made flesh: Jn 1, Rev 10:13.
He was made flesh, that is, mean, despised and mortal,
obedient to the Father until his death Phil 2, 2Cor 8,
who, though he was rich, became poor. And as to what
the Hebrew language means by the word flesh will be
clear from the texts of Ps 87, Is 40 and Jer 16."23
It would be difficult to say why the Hungarian Antitrinitarian mentions the second solution only.
Possibly, he thought the distinction between fuit and factum est was secondary. Maybe he was
concentrating on the basic idea that the condition, state of the man the Scripture calls word has changed.
For this crucial element of Lelio Sozzini's tract has been preserved in this way as well. Nor does it seem
illegitimate, however, to suspect also the existence of tactical considerations there. It can be certainly
claimed that Dávid, talking about the unchanged state of his views, preferred discussing the new
Christology in a wording more reminiscent of the traditional formulation.
One of the crucial points of the confession above is that they regard the Son as equal with the
Father because the Father communicated to him his divinity in its entirety, giving him all power in heaven
and in earth, and wanted the angels and men to worship Him. Refutatio returns to this point several times,
but it was only in the following year that Dávid explained his position in full detail. It should be
emphasized that this happens not against Lelio Sozzini, but the elements that play secondary role with
him are thus strengthened and gain dominant roles.
At the same time, the fact that Dávid recognizes the identity by nature of Jesus and the Father is
difficult to reconcile with Sozzini's position: +Jesus Christ the man is of the same nature as the Father
since he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, but for a different reason: the Father is God by himself, the
Son gets his existence from the Father, Jn 7."24 Although Sozzini too uses the concept seipso deus [God
by himself] borrowed from the Tritheists, he does not accept the identity by nature. Thus, according to the
Hungarian Antitrinitarian, Jesus is of the same nature as the Father because he was begotten by the Father
and thus inherited His nature. This solution clearly cannot avoid the trap of ditheism since if divine nature
13

was inherited in the same natural way as human nature, we must accept the existence of two gods. This
may have been a solution in the earlier periods of Dávid's Antitrinitarianism, but cannot be made to agree
with the ideas of the Italian heretic. That may explain why he does not use it later either. Thus the thesis
just quoted should be regarded as an passing attempt to have the new Christology agree with the older
views.
It is justified to suspect that the readers ignorant of Sozzini's explanations -- no doubt that they
were the majority -- were inclined to the more traditional interpretation in the cases where Refutatio
merely indicates the attitude of its source without quoting it in detail. In this respect the most important
fact is that Socinian doctrine firmly distinguishes two kinds of creation. The first -- the creation of the
world -- was exclusively the work of the Father while in the second -- the spiritual renewal of the world --
the Father creates all by Christ. The confession in question keeps silent about that, nor does the whole
work elaborate this distinction. In this way the expression creator de creatore [creator from creator] of
the confession would inevitably get a traditional interpretation. It was at the most mitigated by at least a
reference to the new interpretation of the expression in principio [in the beginning] -- as meaning the
beginning of the preaching of the Gospel -- in the prologue of John's Gospel.
It will hardly be possible to determine whether these vacillations were the result of the lack of
thorough deliberation or of deliberate progression. For, on the one hand, the intention is clearly there to
propagate the new ideas while upholding the appearance of continuity. And there was every reason for
that as one of the major charges of their opponents against them was inconstancy.
Nevertheless, it can certainly be established that Dávid was familiar with the basic ideas of Lelio
Sozzini's Christology at the time of writing his work. Whether he had the version published later in De
falsa et vera or merely the +rhapsodies" that, according to Schoman's testament, the Polish
Antitrinitarians were learning the new Christology from would be hard to decide with any certainty. The
following comment from Refutatio might allow the inference that by that time the collection of the works
preaching the new Christology and the planning of further publications must have become very intensive.
This is what Dávid writes, having listed the passages that prove, according to Melius, the preexistence of
Christ and only partially refuting their interpretation by Melius: +We are not planning the full refutation
of the explanations of the passages quoted because we have decided to discuss the explication of the
Biblical places in a separate booklet: so now we can consider the following in these quotations."25 This
harmonizes with all that can be known about the propagation of the new Christology on the basis of the
researches of the last few years.26 It is becoming increasingly clearer that Eastern Central European
Antitrinitarianism mastered this Christology in the 1560s as a result of the persistent and concerted propaganda
of the Italian heretics. At that time one of the key figures of this propaganda, Blandrata, was
constantly active in Transylvania, while others, like Gian Paolo Alciati spent shorter spells there, and
connections were established with Niccolo Paruta's centre in Moravia as well. It is only natural that
Ferenc Dávid was in a position to get acquainted with Lelio Sozzini's explanation and he made use of it in
an individual way when replying to Melius.
A joint Polish--Hungarian Antitrinitarian opus and Ferenc Dávid's Hungarian works
For a satisfactory assessment of the other two works published in 1567 by Ferenc Dávid one
should be able to see clearly in a number of issues the literature on the subject keeps debating about.
Since the two works, particularly Rövid magyarázat, are very closely related to the publication entitled
De falsa et vera unius Dei... cogitatione [On the false and true knowledge of the one God],27 first we shall
have to consider the circumstances of its publication and the views concerning the authorship of its
individual chapters. The literature on the subject has thoroughly discussed this very important publication
of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, raising almost impossibly complicated questions.28 A facsimile
14

edition of the work was also published in 1988.29 Therefore, I am going to discuss only those aspects that
Antal Pirnát does not mention in his lengthy introductory essay. I shall of course dwell upon those details
where our opinions differ, and shall use my earlier argumentation which has made Pirnát change his
views, which he had formulated in the 1960s and '70s.
Besides Pirnát, Géza Kathona30 has studied the relationship of the Hungarian and Latin texts in the
greatest detail. This is how he explains the fact that the dedication of the work, which was evidently published
in August 1568, contains the date 1567. That year, he says, is the result of deliberate backdating.
The printing of the work started in 1567 and since it was completed only in 1568, that is how they wished
to inform the reader about the earlier validity of the book. Géza Kathona's main proof is a book that
István Császmai is known to have published in 1567, in which he printed pictures making fun of the
Trinity.31 According to Kathona, the publication of this book was possible in 1567 only because by that
time the printing shop had printed De falsa et vera up to Book I. Chapter 4 inclusive, so they were able to
start circulating that chapter in advance as an offprint. Work on De falsa et vera dragged on until August
1568 because publishing polemical works with current topicality was paramount for Dávid and his circle.
The following arguments can be arrayed against this theory. Deliberate backdating must be ruled
out since the dedication clearly mentions the death of the printer Hoffhalter, who, as his contemporaries
well knew, passed away in March 1568. Furthermore, the Antitrinitarians mentioned in the dedication of
a work published in August 1568 (Refutatio propositionum Petri Melii [The refutation of Melius'
propositions])32 that they were sending Melius a copy of De falsa et vera as a new publication. Thirdly, as
it will be discussed later in detail, a passage of De falsa et vera says the following: +The true Christ was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, born by the Virgin Mary 1568 years ago, after it had been said unto us is
born this day the Saviour, which is Christ, in Bethlehem Lk 2."33 Had it been a case of deliberate
backdating, the date here would be 1567 as well.34 All this has moved me to scrutinize the relationship
between De falsa et vera and the Transylvanian and Polish literature published in 1567 and 1568. The
results of this research can be summed up as follows:
The fact that Rövid útmutatás is also related to the famous printed collection of 1568 will be
shown in detail and commented upon later. This goes mainly for the first part, which is nothing but the
Hungarian translation of Lelio Sozzini's Brevis explicatio. It is not possible to establish such a clear
connection between the texts in the subsequent passages, but the parallelism is worth mentioning, to say
the least. Both Rövid útmutatás and the chapter De discrimine legis et evangelii [On the difference of the
law and the gospel] of the Latin work decisively rely on Servet's Restitutio christianismi [The restitution
of Christianity] when treating the differences between the Old and the New Testaments.
The work entitled Antithesis pseudo Christi cum vero illo ex Maria nato [Contrasting the pseudo-
Christ with the true One born from Mary]35 should also be taken into account, although it appeared without
a dedication and so does not contain direct information concerning exactly when in 1568 it was published.
On the other hand, Barna Nagy has convincingly argued that it was published early in 1568.36 In
his view, in the summer of 1568 Melius and his friends published a work, not surviving today, +which
should be seen most closely related to another publication of Dávid's, which by the evidence of its title --
Antithesis veri et Turcici Christi [Contrasting the true and the Turkish Christ] after the refutation essay by
Dávid -- could be the direct antecedent and cause of Melius' `antitheses': Antithesis Pseudochristi..." His
assumption is based on the ground that the refutation essay of the Antitrinitarians (Demonstratio falsitatis
doctrinae Petri Melii [Demonstrating the falsity of Peter Melius' doctrine])37 refutes the slander that even
now they preach that Christ was poor and of a despised position. Considering that the Antitrinitarian work
in question represents the notion of pauper Christus rather suggestively -- unparalleled among books by
Antitrinitarians(!) -- the assumption of Barna Nagy seems acceptable. Antal Pirnát38 also holds that it was
of paramount importance for the Antitrinitarians to refute the charge that they preached +Turkish Christ".
So in his opinion as well, Antithesis pseudo Christi, a product of this debate, was published before De
falsa et vera. Now, this publication prefigures De falsa et vera in two respects. On the last pages of the
15

work, as if an appendix, there are seven antitheses, which contrast the true Christ promised by God and
preached by the Apostles with the one invented by the Antichrist. These theses are strictly of the
dogmatic type, without the vision of Christus pauper outlined above. This sequence of antitheses is
published nearly unchanged in De falsa et vera, Book 2, Chapter XIII. On the other hand, this publication
also describes the way the Lord tears down the masquerade of the Antichrist and restores the true Christ.
This compact passage is nothing but a brief summary of, and identical even in its linguistic formulation
with, a chapter in De falsa et vera.39
What De falsa et vera interprets in more detail apart from John 1 is the first part of the epistle to
the Colossians. The same can be found in the Antitrinitarian publication describing the religious dispute
at Gyulafehérvár.40
With all this in mind, the appearance of István Császmai's work in 1567 should not necessarily be
explained with the fact that the printing of De falsa et vera started in that year already. Especially if we
remember that Császmai's book in all probability was published with a Hungarian text, at least Sándor
András Thordai writing a refutation in Hungarian41 makes it fairly probable. It would seem more logical
to assume that material was being gathered for a representative publication decided on in 1567, and there
was no reason of course why anything from the available text should not be published in advance. For
Géza Kathona is perfectly right when he says that the pictorial material collected with the help of
international cooperation was originally not intended for Császmai's small publication but for the +great
opus". However, it does not follow that we should regard Császmai's publication as the product of a
+casual idea", especially if the events in Poland are taken into consideration.
When after the middle of 1567 the issue of Christ's preexistence had become the focus of debates
among the brethren in Poland, Grzegorz Pawel became incredibly active as a publisher. He had nine
works published during that period. Although only three of these -- Rozdzial Starego Testamentu od
Nowego [The Difference between the Old and New Testaments], Okazanie y zborzenie wszystkich Wiar
[Demonstration and Eversion of Every Article of Faith Concerning God], Antychymn Wzgardzonych slug
Chrystusa Ukrzyzowanego [Antihymn of the crucified Christ's despised servants] -- carry the date 1568,
Górski42 has convincingly argued that these were all published between the end of 1567 and the
beginning of 1569. It would seem that this interval, and particularly its most intensive phase, was even
shortened by the fact that after the Synod at Pelsznica in October 1568 Anabaptist socio-ethical doctrines
became dominant as against issues of Christology. The following works published by the Polish
Antitrinitarian are Polish versions of one or more chapters of De falsa et vera: Rozdzial Starego
Testamentu od Nowego, Okazanie i zborzenie, Wyklad mieysc niektorych Pisma [Explanations of a few
passages in the Scripture]. The greatest uncertainty surrounds the work entitled Wyklad mieysc niektorych
since there are no extant copies. Górski has tried to reconstruct its contents on the basis of contemporary
and later descriptions, and sees a connection with Chapters IX through XIII, and XV of De falsa et vera.
The work entitled Zgodne a iedne rzecz znamionuiace [Places agreeing and identical in meaning] merits
special attention. This in part corresponds to Chapter XIV of the collective work, but it has been shown
that Grzegorz Pawel used the separately published polemic sheet, Aequipollentes ex scriptura phrases.
All we have said so far can be summed up in a table (Appendix I.)
On the basis of the above, August 1568 as the publication date of De falsa et vera should be interpreted
in a different way. The parallelism we can perceive in the procedure of the Poles and the
Transylvanians suggests that it was within the framework of concerted tactics that they published before
the famous work, which would appear as a joint publication, those of its parts which they, each according
to their views, found important. Dávid and his friends, simultaneously with their brethren in Poland,
wanted to make a breakthrough in the propaganda in Hungary, so that the joint publication register their
position at the same time for both the increased number of their followers in Hungary and the +world at
large".
16

A thorough comparison of the texts in the collected volume and in the separate publications naturally
yields useful information. Now, however, our attention is to be concentrated exclusively on the two
works by Ferenc Dávid published in 1567, especially Rövid magyarázat, which displays the most
extensive correspondences. For the present not commenting on the differences found, we have only one
criterion in mind now and that is whether the Latin or the Hungarian text should be considered the earlier
version. This discussion is made somewhat hypothetical by the circumstance that the Latin texts
published later could be changed even after the publication of the Hungarian versions. It is not at all sure,
therefore, that taking the Latin text of De falsa et vera Dávid's work will be compared with exactly the
adequate texts. Without the manuscripts we can infer probable changes only from external sources. It will
be seen that this kind of useful information is available only for the interpretation of the second part of
Rövid magyarázat. But, taking first things first, we shall have to consider Part One, which contains more
uncertainties.
Those corresponding to this chapter have been found under the titles Quo pacto Antichristus
ecclesiam Dei et verbi divini simplicitatem sensim corruperit [How the Anti-Christ gradually corrupted
God' Church and God's simple word] De origine et progressu triadis: deque initio sophistices: et variis
reclamatoribus [On the origin and the diffusion of the Trinity, the commencement of Sophistries and
those who protested against it]. The first significant change can be caught already at the joining. The
chapter De origine is the first attempt in the Antitrinitarian movement to give a systematic history of the
development of the dogma of Trinity. The Latin text proceeds in a chronological order from the point
where this +ignominy" began in the time of John the Evangelist. Then comes the age of Ignatius,
Irenaeus, when many, due to the influence of Greek philosophy, considered Christ to be God existing
since eternity like the Father. Through Tertullian, whose being a philosopher was a natural explanation of
why he became a Manichean, they get to the times of Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius and Origen, the sage
of sages, by which time the Antichrist was already deeply rooted. Then came Arius and Athanasius, who
subverted the whole of Christendom with their false teachings. Basilius, Nazienzenus, Cyrill, Epiphanius,
Chrysostome, Augustine, Hieronymus and Ambrosius, who mixed up heaven and earth with their sophist
arguments, are not even discussed in detail, since the less said about them the better.
It is in fact after this point that the parallels between the two texts begin. All the Hungarian says
about the period so far is that +some sparks are seen to have flashed in the lives"43 of St. Paul and St.
Peter. The only common point is the mention of the debate between Athanasius and Arius. (This, by the
way, is related here from a somewhat different angle than in the Latin. The Hungarian version, taking the
side of Arius, is compelled to interpolate apologetic lines lest it be besmirched by its enemies with the
+hateful" name of the Arians.) From that point on, with minor divergences, they follow the events on the
whole parallelly up to the time when the both the Moslems and the Jews left the Christians because of the
dogma of Trinity. Then both texts claim, with reference to Averroes, that this dogma is unpopular among
philosophers as well.
Unexpectedly, at this point the Hungarian text, with the words +hark what the sages of today have
to say", as if wishing to make up for what has hitherto been missed, goes back chronologically and begins
to denounce the Church Fathers. The procedure is rather illogical, the argumentation hardly elaborate,
mostly merely indicating with rhetorical questions like +and what shall we say about Origen?" that the
persons in question preached false doctrines. This structural change cum abridgement would be difficult
to explain except that Dávid was trying to cut the ready Latin text short for his +brief" explication. This,
however, was not entirely successful and in comparison with the Latin, the Hungarian text appears rather
difficult to survey. This confusion is only increased by the fact that while the Latin concludes its
discussion after the phases mentioned above saying that all that lasted for a thousand years after Christ
and then starts treating the new golden age of the Sophists, which began with the foundation of the Sorbonne,
the Hungarian places this remark among the description of earlier events, before mentioning the
religious disputes in the time of the Emperor Constantine.
17

A closer examination of the texts that display significant divergences will yield a number of interesting
observations. Two of these may be useful even in deciding the issue of chronology.
The Latin text speaks well of Origen: +However, Origen points out from time to time what we
should think of the one God and his only begotten son, although his books virtually swarm with corrupted
texts and subsequent erasures, and his dogmas were later also condemned by nearly the whole Papacy as
you can see it in Thomas Aquinas who had the audacity to call him the author of the Arian sect."44 The
Hungarian, on the other hand, as if forgetting that it mentions the Arians ambiguously at most, says:
+What shall we say of Origen, who did not differ much from the meaning of the Arians, defending them,
and who is called by the present doctors along with Erasmus a heretic." And then, asking what should be
said of Nazienzenus, Basilius, Eunomius and Ambrosius as well, it goes on: +Some hold they falsified
books, some say they spoke harshly..."45 Not only the differing interpretation is worth noting but it may
be more important that the remark concerning the falsification of books refers to De falsa et vera as well
at least. It is not inconceivable at all that Dávid is carrying on a dialogue with the Latin text he is using.
It has been mentioned that the chapter De origine et progressu briefly passes over Augustine.
Rövid magyarázat treats him in more detail, ticking him off for changing his mind a thousand times and
inviting the readers to see this for themselves in his works written on the Trinity, and against the Arians,
Felicianus and Maximinus. It is simply impossible not to remember that Book I Chapter VI of De falsa et
vera is entitled Compendium librorum Augustini de Trinitate [A summary of Augustine's books on the
Trinity]. It is only logical that the Latin, because it was coming later, should not go into details. On the
other hand, neither can it be ruled out, and the content of Chapter VI does not contradict it, that Dávid had
made use of it already during his reflection.
The Latin is definitely a scholarly work. In most of the cases it names the sources, mostly ecclesiastical
histories, that it uses. This is sometimes done by the Hungarian work, +read the book Hilarius
wrote on the synods", +read Pomponius Letus on this matter", although seldom and on such a general
level only. The question is raised: is it not easier to assume a quick, up-to-date leaflet made on the basis
of a Latin work equipped with all the necessary apparatus, the former retaining some of the references of
the original in the manner shown above than the other way round?
The list of reclamatores ['protesters'] is much longer in the Latin version, including everyone that
the Antitrinitarians of the late 1560s regarded as their predecessors: Beatus Rhenanus, who provided the
information about the beginning of scholasticism, Petrus Abelardus, Gioacchino da Fiore, Robertus
Holcot, Johannes Maior, Pierre d'Ailly, and then the nominalists are followed by +those of today":
Erasmus, Servet, Johannes Valdesius, Cornelius Agrippa, Bernardino Ochino, Girolamo Buzzale,
Martinus Cellarius, Alphonsus Lyncurius Tarragonensis (Gribaldi's pseudonym), Valentino Gentile, Lelio
Sozzini, Grzegorz Pawel. On the other hand, the Hungarian contains the names of Rhenanus, Abelardus,
the Abbot of Calabria, Erasmus, Servet, Gentile and Ochino only. This difference is the easiest to interpret
by assuming the priority of the Latin, which thoroughly discovered the predecessors, and of which
Dávid published a shorter list, mainly with the education of his potential readers in his mind. This effort is
particularly obvious in the case of the only name that is included in the Hungarian version only: +Pál
Scalichius, a man of noble and wise intellect verily writes that the books of the Roman doctors should be
read with selection and judgement or one must refrain from reading them at all."46
This, of course, does not necessarily imply a position on the authorship of the Latin versions. It
would not be unprecedented for someone to compose in Latin differently than in Hungarian, adjusting to
a different public. However, in the light of the facts just mentioned, two remarks in the first part of Rövid
magyarázat might perhaps have some information value. At the end of the part corresponding to the Quo
pacto chapter Dávid says the following: +However, we want to write about all these in more detail, but
now we wanted to write briefly but still in a way that Christians might know..."47 On the other hand, the
part corresponding to the De origine chapter, which is at the same time the first unit of the Hungarian
18

work, he concludes with the following: +We wanted to write all these only as an introduction, my loving
Christian brother, to open the way for the writings of wiser men than us on the true science." Then,
having conventionally apologized for the lack of +eloquence", again: +But ere long you will understand
what wise and Christian men want to write about the false science of quaternity."48 We cannot be far from
the truth when in both cases we suspect the preliminary announcement of De falsa et vera. And since the
collection containing the writings of the +wise men" advertised here was indeed published, these
declarations should not necessarily be regarded as modesty. These considerations have been accepted by
Antal Pirnát, who previously argued for the priority of the Hungarian version, but he still regards Ferenc
Dávid as the most probable author of the Latin chapters analyzed above.49 This can be explained, to some
extent, with the picture he has formed about Blandrata's activities. For the way he sees it, the influential
physician was first and foremost a church organizer and a politician, and was insignificant as a theologian
and writer. It would seem that Lech Szczucki was correct when he questioned this assumption. He holds
that the De origine chapter, which contains a lot about Italian heretics, should still be attributed to Blandrata,
and this suggestion certainly is not improbable.50
Similar observations can be made about the relationship between the chapter Quomodo Christus
suam instauret Ecclesiam [How Christ restores His Church] and the second part of Rövid magyarázat.
Here again we have significant changes, insofar as while the first pages of the Hungarian version
loquaciously sum up the previous chapter, the Latin really tries to give a reason why Christ's Church does
not become clean at one swipe: the blind cannot bear the full light right after regaining his sight, babies
can turn to solid food only after a diet of milk. All the Latin apparently wants to do is present the process
of restoration, referring to the sacraments merely as an example. In the Hungarian, due to the series of
digressions and augmentations, this acquires an independent meaning. The author allows it even at the
price of missing to mention a significant group of the +spies". This is also part of the reason why only the
section Quonam pacto Ecclesiae nostrae progressum habuerint [How our Churches have progressed] in
the centre of the chapters contains any parallelism in the strict sense of the word. The divergences there
are of a similar nature, the Hungarian being more detailed and more expressive in describing the
purification of the sacraments, while also omitting a number of persons from among the exploratores
[spies].
Although what has been said about the list of reclamatores is on the whole valid for the list of the
spies, the latter is also well worth scrutinizing. The list of those omitted from the Hungarian version is impressive:
Bucer, Béze, Simler, Vigandus, Ochino, Castellio, Franciscus Balduinus, Eshusius, Alciati,
Blandrata, Lismanini, Gribaldi, Lelio Sozzini. Others, like Luther, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, Calvin,
the Anabaptists, Cellarius, Servet, Erasmus, Gentile are mentioned in both. These latter are assessed by
both versions according to a common fundamental notion -- with minor differences. While, on the one
hand, nearly each of them possesses some fruit of the spiritual Canaan, the real exploratores will be the
Antitrinitarians, of course, and while the debates of the reformers among themselves may be justified by
the Old Testament allegory, the role of the (real or supposed) Antitrinitarians of old is somewhat obscure,
but that of the more recent will be naturally unanimously positive. The omitted names occur in the Latin
in blocks that cannot be found in the Hungarian version due to the other reason just mentioned.
That is probably why an interesting episode of Transylvanian ecclesiastical history, the debate between
the Calvinist Melius and the Lutheran Matthias Hebler, was omitted from the Hungarian version.
At the same time it is interesting that only the Hungarian version contains two details from the
history of the Protestantism in Poland. This is what we can read in the passage discussing the progress of
Protestantism: +Not long afterwards [i.e. after the teachers from Saxony] we inclined to the Bohemians
though not in the purity of knowledge but in the administration of the church."51 Hungarian ecclesiastical
historiography has no information about Ferenc Dávid or any other member of the Transylvanian
Reformation ever coming into connection with the brethren in Bohemia. Then again, it is a well-known
fact that the Protestants of Poland Minor established very lively connections with them around the middle
19

of the 1550s. The Hungarian version, on the other hand, mentions the merits of +Laskó János", i.e. Jan
Laski.
The conceptional difference between the two texts is however, much more important than the
dissimilarities mentioned so far. For the chiliastic, +enthusiastic" ideas are missing from the Latin -- although
it contains +instructions" that the Hungarian text seems to be fulfilling. The author of Revelation
knew, says the Latin, that this Babylon would have to fall down as well, and so applied the Old Testament
prophecies to it, then goes on: +If someone wants to see these, let him seek the passages marked out
below on the destruction of Babylon and the restoration of God's church. Let him compare, among other,
Chapter 51 of Jeremiah with Chapter 18 of Revelation, where he will find much that is similar..."52 The
Hungarian version gives this comparison, typographically emphasized in two parallel columns. And then
this is how the concluding part of the Latin continues: +Stop wondering why these clear signs of the
restoration are not seen any more, since it is necessary that for a short time even in the reformed churches
various Antichrists should rule, who however, as it has been predicted by Capito and Cellarius, shall be
destroyed along with the creatures of their own minds, after God's word has abandoned them."53 Now, as
it will be shown, this +prophetic" part of Rövid magyarázat relies in a considerable degree upon Cellarius'
De operibus Dei [On God's works], prefaced by Capito.
Nevertheless, the conceptual dissimilarity between the two texts is palpable since while the Latin
describes the process of the restoration of the church, the Hungarian is undoubtedly dominated by Christ's
chiliastic kingdom. The overheated ecstatic thought of the Hungarian is missing from the Latin.
In the Latin the +solida restitutionis indicia" [the clear indications of restitution] are none other
than the fruits of the inner reformation (reformatio animorum) of the faithful, while in the Hungarian the
beginning of the epoch of peace is marked by celestial signs, that is miracles. In addition, in the
Hungarian all this is accompanied by numerological speculations to be analyzed later, demonstrating the
importance of the years 1567 and/or 1570.
On the basis of all this, and of a line of argument similar to the earlier, we regard the Latin version
of De falsa et vera as the primary text. It is not, however, beyond doubt that exactly this textual variation
was the source of the Hungarian of Ferenc Dávid; indeed, later modification is made probable in this case
by a detail outside of the work itself.
Antal Pirnát54 has added interesting comments to the declaration in the preface of Josias Simler's
De aeterno Dei filio. This is what the Zürich theologian wrote in August 1568: +This was the party {that
of the Antitrinitarians denying the deity of Christ} which was followed by Gregorius Paulus with his
people, who daily makes up new prophecies and predicts that within two years from now some sort of
golden age shall begin, in which, once the Jews and Turks convert to the following of Christ, we shall live
here on Earth in happiness for a thousand years."55 Since this declaration had been written before the
publication of De falsa et vera, Pirnát has inferred that this chapter may have had a Latin version which
still contained the chiliastic prophecy for 1570. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that Szczucki56 is correct
and Simler's comment is based on Grzegorz Pawel's Okazania Antichrista. This latter work having been
lost we do not know its content, but it cannot be ruled out that in this or in another work of his Grzegorz
Pawel formulated chiliastic ideas close to those in Rövid magyarázat. Why should it be impossible that
the secession from the sinful world, the so-called +Raków experiment" was done in the spirit of such
ideas? The well-known developments of European Reformation make it quite probable.
Moreover, further details indicate that the basic elements of the historico-philosophical concept in
this chapter can be found in Grzegorz Pawel's earlier works. He had made an attempt already in 1564 in
his work entitled O Róznicach terazniejszyk [On the present controversies] to place Antitrinitarianism in
the process of the Reformation. He makes Antitrinitarianism appear as the peak of the process started by
Luther and Zwingli. This was also clearly seen by Andrzej Frycz-Modrzewski, who described the
20

position of the Polish Antitrinitarian in the following way in the third book of Sylvae, published in June
1568, that is before the publication of De falsa et vera: +Once in the church the selling of mass, the fire of
purgatory and the trading of indulgences were the rule, as well as the immoderate exploitation of the help
of patron saints and the various tricks to buy the kingdom of heaven for money. Everybody knows that
this was abolished by Luther. Zwingli put an end to, and crushed, the heavy armament of masses. Before
that who had not easily acquiesced in the abuses we have just enumerated? I am talking not only of the
ignorant masses but of persons with the most serious scholarly learning. Who among these, I ask, had not
put the hope of their salvation in masses, indulgences, the calling of patron saints and the like? Yet it
turned out that, however deeply they had rooted in people's souls, examined at the light of God's word, all
these were vain, broken and destroyed completely by the splendid force of God's word. Why would it be a
miracle if we finally found these axioms about the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ vain, and full of
stupidity and error?"57
It is of course obvious that the search for the witnesses of truth (testes veritatis) comes from the
tradition of earlier decades, for this appearance is justified with historical precedents by Sebastian Franck
just as well as by Carion, or by other historians of the Reformation.58 Therefore, Rotondo59 may not be
completely right either when assuming that the enumeration of the reclamatores in De falsa et vera is
arguing with the preface of Béze in his work against Gentile published in August 1567.60 It is indeed
remarkable how in this work most of the authors praised highly by De falsa et vera are painted with the
darkest colours. For Béze, Servet, Alciati, Gentile, Blandrata, Gribaldi, Ochino, Lelio Sozzini, Grzegorz
Pawel are the instruments of Satan. They are the ones, along with the Anabaptists, Schwenckfeld, Menno
Simons, David Joris, Postel, incited by Satan to frustrate the process of purifying the church, which
Luther had started.
Leaving the detailed analysis of the chiliastic ideas for later we still have to answer the question:
why was this idea omitted from the representative publication. Very likely precisely because it was representative.
It is easy to see that its discussion would have been too risky in a work that wished to let the
European public know the views of the Antitrinitarians, so they published a text free of prophecies. On
the other hand, tactical considerations within the movement should not be dismissed either and De falsa
et vera can be regarded as a minimum that was acceptable for all. It is obvious that there were debates
among them over this question since it is difficult to see Blandrata, who always weighed political and
tactical aspect with a clear head, enthusiastically embracing such views. Naturally, the 1568 publication,
retaining the fundamental pillars of the edifice, made it also possible for those who believed in the
prophecy about 1570 to add in thought what had been left unsaid. Indeed, it appears that it was explicitly
for them that the word QUADRAGINTA was capitalized at the description of the forty years exile.
Highlighting in this one of numerous biblical examples was significant for those who knew the version
that said that the last forty years' exile had begun in 1530 and would end in 1570.
It is also clear that these considerations have not moved us one step closer to the solution of the
riddle of authorship. It is well-known that the Sozinian tradition in ecclesiastical history regards this
chapter of De falsa et vera as Blandrata's work as well. Being the collective enterprise it is, the fact that
the Latin text mentions him, too does not rule this out: +Read ... Béze's maledictions and slanders against
Eshusius, Alciatus and Blandrata."61 It is not possible, however, to see him as the prophetic spirited
author of the probable earlier Latin version since it would be alien to his whole activity. Instead, he may
rather have had some role in the more sober summary of the earlier reflections on ecclesiastical history.
We are more inclined to attribute the prophecy, utilizing numerological speculations and predicting even
the precise year of the commencement of the happy era, to Ferenc Dávid or Grzegorz Pawel, the latter of
whom is also included in the role of honour. The existence of the tradition might tip the scales in favour
of the Polish author, who had been active in the movement for some time.
To sum up: as a result of the propaganda, increasing in intensity since the mid 1560s and the concurrent
+literary" activity, the material for De falsa et vera, the common publication of the Transylvanian
21

and Polish Antitrinitarians was mostly ready for the press by the second half of 1567. To print it, however,
was possible only after the Antitrinitarians had achieved more and more notable successes in the
propaganda at home. It was for this purpose that they published their briefer and more didactic works,
which discussed their teachings often in simplified form and in the vernacular language. These works can
be interpreted only with the parallel texts of De falsa et vera in view.
Tactical considerations and prophetic resilience in Dávid's first Hungarian work
The above will have to be kept in mind when considering the nature of the Antitrinitarianism
formulated in Rövid magyarázat. That is to say, we shall have to remember that when writing Rövid
magyarázat, Ferenc Dávid already knew, and was making use of, the most important documents that had
formulated the new Christology and put Antitrinitarianism into a historical context. From the above it will
naturally follow that I do not share the view of Valerio Marchetti,62 who claims that at the turn of 1567
and 1568 Dávid still did not know Lelio Sozzini's Brevis explicatio. Marchetti puts forward two
arguments to support his position: a) Rövid magyarázat does not give this text, but it is included in Book
2 Chapter IX of De falsa et vera; b) in Rövid magyarázat the name of Lelio Sozzini is not on the list of
reclamatores.
As to his first argument, it should be remembered that details can be pointed out already in
Refutatio scripti Petri Melii that prove the contrary. The crucial argument, however, will be the first part
of Rövid útmutatás, which can be regarded as a Hungarian translation of the famous explication. As to his
second argument, the above will probably have shown that it was wrong to formulate the question why it
is Lelio Sozzini that was missing from the roll of honour. It should be asked rather why he is not on it
along with a number of others. The above have hopefully provided a logical answer to this query.
What we are going to have to concentrate on now is mainly the way Dávid ladled out for his pious
flock the new doctrine, well-known already from primary sources. We are going to scrutinize first of all
Chapters Three and Four of the work but, naturally, the earlier parts just discussed will also have to be
considered. Since it is the third part that contains most information from a Christological point of view,
even the aspect of interpretation need not be pushed into the background when contrasting Part Three
against the Latin of De falsa et vera.
First we should correct the well-known notion that Chapter 3 of Rövid magyarázat corresponds to
Chapters IV. and V. in Book Two of De falsa et vera. A comparison of the texts will clearly show that
this applies to Chapter V. only. For the confession in Dávid is not identical with that in Chapter IV. of
Book Two of the collected version, but is a literal translation of the confessio in Refutatio scripti Petri
Melii. This, of course, means mainly differences of locution and that Dávid does not have the antitheses
added to each article. There is, however, one significant difference. Keeping strictly to the text of
Refutatio scripti Petri Melii, Dávid gives an exact Hungarian translation of the sentence about Christ's
aequalitas: +And we believe him to be, and to be said to be, equal because God the Father shared His
Divinity in its entirety with Him giving Him all the power on earth, and wanted this son of His to be worshipped
by angels and by men Mat. 28. Heb 1."63 It is evident, then, that in this respect Dávid in the
Hungarian version made use of the device we have seen in Refutatio.
The text following the confession of faith, on the other hand, corresponds to Chapter V. of De
falsa et vera. This explicatio is also very didactic and chose a form excellently fit for convincing pious
believers. It gives a property, mostly taken literally from the Bible, of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost, and proves it with scriptural citations. Each main group of this list is joined by antitheses, illustrating
the foolish views of their opponents. The differences between the Latin and the Hungarian are
22

minimal.
At times he introduces changes in order to avoid terms that have no Hungarian equivalents and
which are discussed in the Latin only because the opponents use them. Thus while, according to the Latin,
in the knowledge of the Antichrist the Father +sibi coessentialem et coaequalem filium ab aeterno genuit"
[begot a son coessential and coequal with himself from eternity], the Hungarian is content with the
following formulation: +he begot a son like himself from eternity". Thus Dávid wastes no time trying to
explain in detail how the extra-scriptural terms introduced by The Antichrist should be understood. He
obviously believes that he would only confuse the simple readers, who do not understand Latin and are,
therefore, uninfected by philosophy.
So the statements of Rövid magyarázat concerning the Trinity have a clear purpose: to give the
faithful a simple, clear confession and to suggest, at the most, what interpretation of the crucial biblical
passages support the theses. This, nevertheless, necessarily implies that certain things remain
undiscussed, as we have seen in Refutatio, although in this work perhaps to a lesser extent. Some
contradictions are eliminated, Christ is not said to be of an identical nature with the Father. Undoubtedly
it can perhaps be conjectured, particularly from the remarks in Part Four on the differences of the Old and
New Testaments in what sense Christ is to be regarded as Creator according to the new doctrine, but it is
not said in as many words clearly and unequivocally. It is also evident that when after the preface, in the
explication of Is 51/56, Christ is taken as the creator of +new heavens and earth", it should be understood
in a +spiritual" sense, but the simple believers of the sixteenth century were nevertheless left in the dark.
Nor does he explain clearly how the expression +by whom are all things" should be understood.
There is also a strong emphasis on continuity. That is why he refers to Catechesis Ecclesiarum
Dei, which recorded the compromise of 1566: +For so far we have not allowed the entry of any other
confession in our Catechism, in which the sum of true learning is taught, but the creed in which we have
assurance of the goods of this world and of the other that we shall not want without other."64 The passage
referring to the Apostolic creed really counts as important, and it can be paralleled with another place of
Rövid magyarázat. +The many kinds of confessions of faith shall have to perish which are not without
errors so that the one Apostolic creed remain alone and we can be in one learning with the
Apostles."65 This makes clear why István Basilius, one of Dávid's collaborators undertook to prepare a
detailed explication of creed. The Antitrinitarians never considered the confessions of faith even they
themselves made to be symbolic writings as the Lutherans did the Augustinian or the Calvinists the
Helvetian confession, but merely didactic summaries serving occasional purposes, which could be modified
at any time, with the basic principles upheld, if preaching or the actual needs of the debate demanded
it.
This attitude made it possible for Dávid, using the excuse of simplicity and clarity, to concentrate
on publishing one Antitrinitarian consensus instead of detailing the two contradicting Antitrinitarian
concepts. It is in accord with De falsa et vera, which mentions a number of times that the faithful have to
seek only what the Lord revealed in the Scripture. It is not their business to try to find out what God has
been since eternity, whether there have been three distinct persons or three essences. With regard to what
is coming below it is important to point out: the Latin text is doing its best to avoid the internal debates of
the Antitrinitarian movement in the field of Christology in a strict sense as well. On the one hand, it
declares, in accordance with the Servetian conception: +...we say that the Lord's word and the Holy Ghost
existed with God not as persons, individuals or suchlike sophistications but these were His virtues and
dispensations which He used as his hands when creating all things."66 On the other hand, the denial that
this word was any kind of son opens the possibility to bridge the gap towards the new conception. Then
he calms those who are worried because of the apparent contradiction with the following: +We have no
reason to be worried when investigating these distinctions because God's word is but the Speaking God
Himself, nor is the Holy Ghost other than the strength and power of God the Father, i.e. the powerful and
holy God Himself."67
23

This tendency can be observed in the work that introduced the new Christology in Hungarian, but
the refutation of disputes is even stronger with Dávid, especially in the last part of the work, subtitled
Tanácsadás [Counsel]. It is particularly interesting how the author refers to +simple people". Let the following
passages be an illustration, even at the price of possible arbitrariness. +...What use is to our salvation
even if we understood what God is in His essence, and in what way those three persons are in one
essence..." +Even if these were true and even if we understood them, these are not necessary for our
salvation, so why are we fighting, filling the whole world with steel and fire when these cannot be found
in God's word?..." +If this undescribable confusion, namely the one about this God of one essence, three
persons and the origin attributed to the Holy Ghost were put in the way of salvation, no one would have
been able to reach salvation for all have been disputing about these things so far and yet it is to be decided
by the judge (my italics, M. B.)". +And the simple people, who know not the alphabet, should take the
Apostolic Creed and the prayer made by Christ..."68
This effort to play down the significance of the debates is undoubtedly a propagandistic device
meant to break way in the direction of biblicism, which provided more favourable circumstances for
Antitrinitarians. (The reference to the Apostolic creed and to +the prayer made by Christ" makes this
quite obvious.) On the other hand, these sentences argue with the enthusiastic optimism manifest in the
Preface of Refutatio scripti Petri Melii and in the whole of Rövid magyarázat, especially with the
prediction of the empire of peace for 1570. For, according to the clause italicized above, quick victory
over the Sophists was not expected and a certain transcendence over his own position can also be perceived
there. For at least a moment Dávid views his own polemics from the outside. I would not say that
this, with regard to the whole work, rather hidden mentality could be identified with the humanist
skepticism of Dávid's sources (to be considered later), but it is not identical with the agnosticism,
common among Antitrinitarians, that legitimizes extreme biblicism. It is of course out of the question for
him to consider the debates around Trinity adiaphoron but the momentary +transcendence" over the
squabbles is worth mentioning. It should also be pointed out that this voice is completely alien to
Grzegorz Pawel, the fanatic leader of the Polish Antitrinitarians.
In the concluding section of Tanácsadás, however, the optimistic voice expecting the coming of
the victorious Christ returns. He will be greeted by the steadfast believers +with joyous faces and clear
conscience". It is also added, probably repeatedly announcing either Rövid útmutatás or De falsa et vera,
that +from the will of God we shall show with our published writing on a day before long that this is so,
and shall explain the writings that are made by force for the defense of their opinions."69
Differences and parallels in the vernacular propaganda in Transylvania and in Poland
Rövid útmutatás, the other Hungarian work Ferenc Dávid published in 1567 has hardly been discussed
in the literature on the subject, although its thorough analysis will yield lessons that are very important
not only for Transylvanian but European Antitrinitarianism as well. An outline of these, on the
other hand, will require the consideration of other texts related to, or touching upon, it. We have in mind
primarily the chapter entitled De discrimine legis et euangelii in De falsa et vera and Grzegorz Pawel's
Rozdzial Starego Testamentu od Nowego.
The chapter of De falsa et vera in question discusses an issue that goes beyond the problematics
concerning the Trinity in the strict sense but is connected to it most organically. For the denial of Christ's
preexistence necessarily meant that the followers of the movement had to think about the state of God-man
relationship before and after Christ, the possibilities of justification and the relationship of the two
testaments. The chapter De discrimine legis et euangelii, very significant in its brevity, discusses these
24

issues, sharply opposing the position that Calvin had formulated in the Institutio, forced not in the least by
Servet and the Anabaptists. According to Calvin, there is one and unchanged covenant manifested in
various external things depending on the times and the circumstances. All this is built on three basic
theses: 1. God did not promise the Jews corporeal and worldly happiness; 2. the covenant was based not
on the merits of the Jews but on God's grace alone; 3. the Jews not only had their own mediating Christ,
but they knew Him, too. The differences concern not the essence, but the modus administrationis [the
way of administering]. Therefore, the validity of the Law did not cease with the redeeming sacrifice of
Christ.
The publication in question concentrating mainly on Christological aspects already in the exposition
of the debate mocks Augustine and his followers, who thought that the fathers of the Old Testament
were not only given material wealth and happiness in this world, but eternal life as well. Instead of
detailing the arguments of the opponents, Dávid goes on to give an account of a diametrically different
notion. Using mostly contrasts (flesh--Spirit, life--death, shadow--truth) based on Rom 8, he clearly states
the substantial difference between the Old and New Testaments, pointing out that in the Old Testament all
the Jews requested from, and were given by, God were material goods, they wanted a land in this world
only, their punishments and rewards being similarly of this world.
Scholars have so far somehow missed to note the exciting fact that this chapter employs to a great
extent Servet's Christianismi restitutio, the great work of the earlier phase of Antitrinitarianism.70 There
are but few sentences in this chapter that do not derive from the various chapters of the book entitled De
Legis et Evangelii ac Judaei et Christiani differentiis [On the Differences between the Law and the
Gospel, Jew and Christian] of the work in question. Indeed, it clearly follows the order of the chapters of
the earlier work: first passages are taken from Chapter One (Quod Judaeum excellat Christianus [That
Christians are better than Jews]), then from Chapter Two (Quod in lege fuerit iustitia carnis, cum in
evangelio sit iustitia spiritus [That justification was of the flesh in the Law, but in the Gospel there is
spiritual justification]), but the third chapter (Quod in lege fuerit iustitia factorum, cum in evangelio sit
iustitia fidei [That in the Law there was justification by works, but in the Gospel there is justification by
faith]) is not used. The procedure was quite simple: going through these chapters some sentences were
adopted word for word, others a little transformed. Here is an example for the latter procedure:
+In Leviticus the bloody and bloodless sacrifices were ordered for propitiation of the flesh, in
which, as the Apostle said (Heb 9 and 10), there was no real remission of sins."71
+Thus according to Leviticus there were propitiatory sacrifices and remission of sins through the
spilling of the blood of various animals (Lev 5 and 6), but these were not real only the types and symbols
of the remission to come (Heb 9 and 10)."72
We have the impression that they did not wish particularly to keep even their source a secret since
the close of the given chapter of De falsa et vera and that of the part in Restitutio Quod in lege fuerit
iustitia carnis are almost completely identical. There is only one perceptible change: the Servetian
sentence (Why Christ does not give his elected servants camels, slaves, lands and riches as he did to
Abraham and his posterity, but cross and persecution instead?) was replaced in the Transylvanian
publication by the following: +Why Christ does not give his elected servants offices, sons, immunity and
riches as he did to Abraham and his posterity, but cross and persecution instead?"73 That is, it is not
merely a list of valuable gifts, but there is an effort to blur the couleur locale of the Old Testament as
well.
The following passage will, on the other hand, clearly show how the editors of De falsa et vera
tried to sift out the Platonic elements of the Servetian conception:
25

+And yet there are those today +And as to 1Cor 10 being brought forth as a
who say that all the Israelites living in counter-argument, see the context when he calls Israel
Egypt, except the two reprobates, were of the flesh, making a clear distinction between flesh
spiritual since they all ate the same and spirit, cloud and light, figure and truth for there
spiritual meat and drank the same was no spiritual people there, but spiritual food and
spiritual drink 1Cor 10, but when Paul at drink are mentioned here because it prefigured as a
the same place calls Israel of the flesh shadow a spiritual mystery in the manna and the rock.
saying that it was a figure under the But note Paul's words when he says that the Rock fol-
cloud, he makes a clear distinction lowed them, he does not say it was already existing or
between flesh and spirit, cloud and light, that it preceded them."75
figure and truth. For there was no
spiritual people there, but the food and
drink are mentioned in the spiritual sense
because the manna and the rock
prefigured a spiritual mystery as a
shadow. The rock of Horeb itself was
spiritually Christ since it adumbrated
Christ."74
Servet's text gives an obvious feeling of the Platonic background of the idea: sensual, material existence
is but a shadow of a superior spiritual existence. As much as the objects, events of the Old
Testament represent Christ in the necessarily inferior sphere of material existence, this also proves
clearly, within the given system of ideas, that Christ is already present in the Old Testament as well, in a
superior sphere, more real in fact than material existence, of spiritual existence. These spiritual gifts are,
however, inaccessible for the Jews, blind for this spiritual reality. But this Platonic philosophical conception
is alien from the editors of De falsa et vera. That is why for them primary reality is sensual, material
existence. Ideas, which material objects as symbols refer to, reveal themselves before men only as a
shadows just because they really do not exist as yet.
These few examples will perhaps have given a feeling of how closely De discrimine legis et
euangelii is related to Servet's work. It would seem safe to say then, that the author's opinion about the
relationship of the two Testaments is identical with that of the Spanish heretic. The basic element of the
Servetian conception, i.e. that the events related in the books of the Old Testament are but figures of those
to come in the New can clearly be perceived. Still, figures and +shadows" only and not the things
themselves, so with the coming of the latter the former will lose their function. Accordingly, a figural
interpretation based on historical interpretation would seem to be in order in the case of the Old
Testament. The different Christology, the denial of Christ's preexistence did not mean a really serious
problem in that respect since if the periods before and after the Man Christ are so distinctly separated, it
will be possible to speak one language even without an agreement upon His previous status.
All this, however, does not mean that this relatively brief text transmits the thoughts on this
subject in Restitutio in their entirety. The cause of the incompleteness is mostly the fact that at this point
the third chapter of the book in question is still completely ignored. This meant that the believers were
told one element of the Servetian justification only. The fundamental question raised at the head of the
chapter about whether and how the Old Testament fathers are saved is answered entirely in the spirit of
Servet: + We are not saying that the Fathers had no faith at all or that they did not have any hope in
eternal life, but we teach with Paul that they were saved merely according to hope; all those professing
the coming resurrection of Christ till the fullness of days hid not in eternal death but in the shadow of
death. If I be lifted up, says Christ, I will draw all men unto me, taking no one with him before he was
26

lifted up, Jn 12."76
The thought that they were given only the promise or shadow of eternal life emerges several times
and the temporality of the various forms of justification appears. All this, however, suggests only the
thoroughly elaborated conception Servet, which distinguishes two basic forms of justification. On the one
hand, he knows justification based on written or natural law. Justification by works (iustitia factorum) is
given to all, but justification by faith (iustitia fidei) is only for Christians. But this does not mean that
works are without value. Indeed, Servet says, Christians, on the one hand, will be judges of heathens and
Jews at the last judgement and, on the other, they will partake of the glory of eternal life according to
their own merits.
We cannot, however, end the description of the chapter by registering this gap. We still have to
mention the very important appendix attached to the main text under the title Ex istis Antithesibus poteris
et de hoc discrimine facilius persuaderi [You can be convinced of the differences more easily from these
antitheses]. There the following +dualities" are lined up in brief, single sentence form: duplex creatio
[double creation], duplex mundus [double world], duo initia rerum [two beginnings of things], duos
Adamos [two Adams], duplex generatio [two kinds of generation], and then he lists duplicem vitam [two
kinds of lives], duos filios [two sons], duo regna [two kingdoms], duplex foedus et testamentum [two
kinds of covenant and testament], duplicem scripturam et sigilla [two kinds of scripture and seals], duos
Doctores [two Doctors], duplices nominis sensus [the two meanings of the name], and finally concludes
by saying, duplex est sacramentorum usus [sacraments have two kinds of uses]. Under the title Adiecimus
et ea quae ter repetuntur in scripturis [We are appending those mentioned in the Scripture three times]
+triads" are listed: mors Christi [death of Christ], resurrectio [resurrection], vocatio ex Aegypto [the
calling out from Egypt], vocatio ex Babylone [the calling out from Babylon], desertum et tentationes
[wilderness and temptations]. Then speaking of one +tetrad" he distinguishes the four ways the Scripture
mentions Christ.
After the above it will come as no surprise that most of these theses also come from Restitutio. In
addition to the chapters mentioned they were lifted out from the extraordinarily diverging trains of
thought, rich in allegories, of the first two books of De regenaratione superna, illustrating, as it were, the
basic Servetian thesis that every carnal act of the Jews prefigures a certain spiritual happening. In several
cases -- mors Christi, vocatio ex Aegypto -- we can find nearly literal quotations here, but they follow the
spirit of the Spaniard even when relying on their own ingenuity. Some of these allow us a glimpse into
what hermeneutic grounds the ecclesiastical historical conception sketched in the earlier chapters of De
falsa et vera and in Rövid magyarázat is based upon. Thus, as the third member of resurrectio, they have
Christ rising now from various coffins, these days Luther beginning to resurrect Him. The part Desertum
et tentationes is even more telling: +Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. The temptation of
Christ lasted for 40 days Mt 4. Now we have been wandering in the deserts of The Antichrist for 40 years
since Luther, under the rule of Babylon."77
Apart from the section listing the four times of Christ -- he was ordered before the beginning of
times, promised in the Old Testament, appeared in the New, and would eventually come triumphantly --
new elements can be found among the antitheses only. For the antithetic pairs of duplex creatio, duplex
mundus, duo initia rerum are formulated entirely in the spirit of Lelio Sozzini's Brevis explicatio. They
talk about a sole first creation performed by God alone, which resulted in the visible world, related by
Moses, and about a spiritual re-creation related by the Apostles and performed by the Father through
Christ. This fact should be allowed great significance even if we grant that the really characteristic,
individual traits of the Servetian conception had been leached out from the theses. Leaving interpretation
for a later occasion, we merely point out here that the chapter of De falsa et vera, considered above, is an
attempt, both in its main text and in its appendix, at a synthesis of Christianismi restitutio and the
Christology of Lelio Sozzini.
27

Rozdzial Starego Testamentu od Nowego is without doubt the most instructive work of Grzegorz
Pawel, one which tells us perhaps most about the ideas of the radical preachers of the ecclesia minor in
Poland active during this period. It will be considered in a different context later; for the time being we
merely want an answer to the question whether and to what extent the intent to synthesize or, to put it
more modestly, to put ideas into one work, as observed in De vera et falsa, is present. The question is
undoubtedly justified by the view, established in the literature on the subject by Konrad Górski's monograph,
that this work is in no way related to Christianismi restitutio.78
If our earlier statements are correct, it can be established right away that at most the direct influence
can be questioned since Górski himself admits that the text of the Polish Antitrinitarian is not
unrelated to the chapter De discrimine legis et euangelii of the famous Transylvanian publication. What
has to be particularly emphasized is that the concluding part of the work contains the +duplex" series
from the appendix of the chapter in question of De falsa et vera. The two texts are not perfectly identical
because Grzegorz Pawel is again rather talkative here, and there are other differences interpretable from
an ideological aspect. These latter can plainly be described by the fact that the Polish version places a
greater emphasis on the importance of the moral superiority of the gospel. Thus in the antitheses of duos
filios and duo regna the Polish text does not fail to stress that the sons of the Old Testament are the
children of wrath and darkness, while those of the New Testament belong to meekness and light.
These theses are also important because they cover nearly all the topics discussed in the first part,
providing the theological grounding, of the work consisting of three chapters. After the preface, to be
mentioned later, he commences discussing the two kinds of creation, which is followed by a full
description of the two worlds, the two kinds of life in the spirit of the new interpretation of the Gospel of
John. This also indicates that Grzegorz Pawel does not start with the commencing thought of the chapter
De discrimine but works entirely independently. The same goes for the rest where the dichotomy of the
giving of the soul means the appearance of a completely new element, absent from the assumed sources.
By the way, the modus operandi of Grzegorz Pawel is best characterized by his not being satisfied with
merely stating the differences but also trying to represent them very vividly, while admonishing his
readers on nearly every page. Thus, for instance, he does not merely record that the Levite priests were
carnal and performed outward ceremonies, but often and repeatedly describes these at length. The just
noted Anabaptist element is at the same time also rather forcefully present: it is emphasized with equal
frequency that meekness and toleration should rule in the New Testament, that the faithful here bless and
love even their enemies. All this amplifies the autonomous nature of the work. No doubt, it would be useless
to try to find such a close following of the text of Restitutio as in the case of De vera et falsa. At the
same time, I would not claim that it is entirely independent of the Servet's work. For although it is true
that the contrasts demonstrating the differences between the Old and the New Testaments (letter--soul,
slave--son, shadow--truth, etc.) do not in themselves refer to Servet, the fact that the concluding part of
the work displays a close connection with the chapter De discrimine, which made maximal use of Restitutio,
is a serious argument against dismissing these contrasts as simply topical.
In the subsequent chapters written with great dynamism the whole system of the Catholic church
is mercilessly criticized, but the Protestant denominations and the Jews also get their share of criticism.
According to the notion elaborated in the preface and repeated ad nauseam, the +present-day Babylon" is
the result of Satan's confusing perfect evangelical knowledge with the old Jewish Testament. On the other
hand, what had happened earlier to the Old Testament has been repeated after Christ: Satan has totally
turned the true learning inside out with pagan inventions and the introduction of new gods like Baal,
Moloch, Dagon, and so on. This latter element may remind us of Servet, but it is important to point out
that the Antichrist does not assume cosmic dimensions, nor are his earlier forms of manifestation
discussed, in the work of the Polish Antitrinitarian, but the more traditional image of the false prophet
rising among the heathen in the days of the apostles is dominant instead. In that respect there is a great
difference between Grzegorz Pawel's infinitely simple, easy to grasp, one might even say simplified,
conception and that of Servet, complicated and elaborated with great refinement. As it is well-known, ac-
28

cording to the Spanish heretic, the Antichrist could be regarded as the so far most intensive manifestation
form of Satan. Accordingly, he elaborates in detail in Restitutio how much Baal, Bel, Baalpehor, Astarot,
Dagon, Moloch, etc. prefigure the present Antichrist, to what extent they were his +types". He even goes
so far as to speak about the parallelism between the incarnation of Christ and of that all-around, intensive
evil. At the same time, one of the tested and frequently used weapons of this Antichrist is interpreting the
carnal things (promises, rites, etc.) described in the Old Testament not as the allegories, +figures" of the
spiritual things fulfilling in the New Testament, but in a way that has carnal things correspond to carnal
things. This is what Servet calls judaizing and he indignantly reproaches the Papists for judaizing.
It follows from all this that Grzegorz Pawel's work can be said to be one of the elements of the
larger conception of Restitutio -- picked out, absolutized and minutely elaborated. The argumentation
used here frequently occurs in the train of thought discussing the mysteries of the Antichrist, but it is used
in a most concentrated form in the first part of the second (De circumcisione vera, cum reliquis Christi et
Antichristi mysteriis, omnibus iam completis [On the true circumcision, with the mysteries that have all
been fulfilled of Christ and The Antichrist]) of his two books (De orbis perditione et Christi reparatione
[On the perdition of the world and the renovation of Christ]). What we have here is short, virtually independent
treatises on three subjects that are of crucial importance and elaborated in detail in the Polish
work as well; these are the Sabbath and the holidays, the churches and the Papacy, and the institution of
priesthood. The argumentation can be easily inferred from the above. The Jewish Sabbath was fulfilled
and became spiritual with Christ, so insisting on it or turning it into Sunday means remaining imprisoned
in carnality. That is what Grzegorz Pawel thinks, defining true +sabbathing" (sabatowac) in accordance
with Servet as spending our lives in the service of Christ.
However, he would belie himself if he stopped here and did not criticize very energetically and
vividly the practice of using holidays for drinking, dancing, feasting and celebrating masses in the dens of
the Antichrist in the morning and in public houses in the afternoon. Similarly, in the New Testament the
faithful are Christ's true temples, and Levite priesthood naturally came to an end with Him. All this, of
course, should not justify our suspecting the presence of Servet's thoughts since the idea that observation
of Papist ceremonies is judaizing became nearly topical on the pens of the reformers.79
The two examples below, however, can illustrate that the actualities of the argumentation sometimes
contain correspondences that make Serve's influence probable:
+Furthermore it would follow +Thus he protects his terrible holy years, when
from the same premise that a year of robberies take place and the road is open for all evil,
jubilee, similar to the Jewish, be held in with the fiftieth year of the Jews when all the poor and
Rome, that we be properly sprinkled tortured find solace... He protects the water taken from
with hyssop and false water according to paganism with the blood of that red heifer. 4Mos 19. ...
the Jewish spirituality, that we have He protects his temples with Solomon's temple since
consecrated bells after the example of that is the only one made at the orders of God."81
the synagogue, that we have lamps for
the lamps, temple of stone for the temple
of stone, full of idols and
abominations."80
+Similarly, lest the New
Testament vows or the Nazareate should
be fulfilled in baptism by Christ, but that
habites."83
+He protects monks with Nazareans and Re-
29

these be fulfilled by monks, and that the
monk's hood is the fulfillment of the
Nazareans' law."82
Thus, it would seem that for all the differences and the independence of the Polish work the inspiration
from Restitutio cannot be ruled out. We have to return to the view of Bock and Wallace,84 who
emphasized that Grzegorz Pawel relied on the work of Servet. Since the literature on the subject
unequivocally claims that one of the lost works of the Polish Antitrinitarian (Okazanie Antychrysta) was a
paraphrase of a part of Restitutio (Signa sexaginta regni Antichristi [Sixty signs of the reign of the
Antichrist]), it is not at all surprising. Nor is this the lesson of our analysis but that even depending on De
discrimine legis et euangelii the work in question endeavoured to marry the ideas of the Genevan
Antitrinitarian martyr and those of the younger generation.
Hermeneutical meditation and Christological foundations in another Hungarian opus
The following will hopefully show that the intellectual historical interest of Rövid útmutatás is
really perceptible with an awareness of the above context. The dedication itself makes very exciting reading.
If the dedication of Refutatio scripti Petri Melii intended to strengthen the sympathy of the ruling
Prince towards the Antitrinitarians, now it was the turn of Ferenc Mikola, +God-fearing" and +true noble
man" to be the target. The text gives a good picture of the dilemmas the members of the Transylvanian
nobility had to overcome if they wanted to join the new movement.
+It is certainly difficult for the flesh and despicable in the eyes of the wise men of this world to
abandon the God, trinite for many years, built up by Synods and the explications of so many fathers, as
well as it is difficult for us to suffer the abuses and mockery from our brethren, but in all this the faith and
the love that Christ generates and raises in His word in the hearts of the faithful will triumph," the
dedication goes.85 The abuses and the mockery were to be suffered first of all by the propagators of the
idea, but it must have been a matter of consideration among the faithful whether to join the new religion
that breaks with the thousand year old tradition of Christianity, thus inevitably leading to isolation in the
given situation. Against this Dávid refers to the all pervading power of the +good Scripture", which is
impossible to resist. As an example, he tells the +God fearing men" his own story.
Knowing how passionately he insisted on his views that he was currently considering to be
correct, we can believe him when he says it was not easy to undertake the new quarrels and arguments.
He admits, he did not understand all the articles of his present doctrine. It is with some sarcasm that he
thanks his opponents for attacking him because otherwise +I would have buried God's truth in my own
self", but there is some truth in it. Obviously his +escaping forward" from Tritheism had been accelerated
by the fact that his debates with Melius and his friends had finally convinced him that his viewpoint was
untenable. The text, incidentally, is perceptibly overcharged with the intense sense of vocation so
characteristic of sixteenth century Hungarian preacher-authors. +They can write, cry and heap their
abuses on my head, I do know whom I have believed and why I have believed the truth of His word, nor
could I keep it secret but I had to speak and I will speak at the behest of God as long as the Lord God nurtures
the soul in my body and gives me strength to write and to speak."86
What he has just been given strength for is nothing but the first formulation in Hungarian of the
decisive elements of the new Christology. It would seem that Dávid saw the time had come to make use
of its basic text, Lelio Sozzini Brevis explicatio, this time at unmistakable length and in Hungarian for the
education of his pious followers. He places all this, however, in such an interesting context that it is
expedient to start the analysis with a sketch of the structure of the work. The following larger units can be
discerned after the dedication: with the first word of John's Gospel as a starting point, the interpretational
30

possibilities of +beginning" in the Bible; the description of various +duplicities" (two creations, two
births, two educations, two kinds of life, two kinds of death); a hermeneutical treatise on the correct
interpretation of the Scripture; the interpretation of Genesis 1:26; conclusion.
In the interpretation of in principio, he entirely relies on Brevis explicatio. Expounding its individual
statements in further detail he explains that it goes against the Scripture to conceive the
beginning as eternity. Unlike his source, he names Theophilactus of the old masters and Rodolphus
Gualterus of the +modern ones" as those who had disapproved of that view. However, even they had not
seen clearly what great obscurity the confusing of the two beginnings had caused in the Church. He
describes how the two beginnings, the beginning of the world, described by Moses, and the beginning of
Christ's kingdom, described by the apostles, should be distinguished. The adoption of key sentences and
references to the same biblical passages makes it probable that he worked from the version in De falsa et
vera.
Already during the slightly prolonged discussion he has warned his faithful that mixing up the different
meanings of beginning has further consequences, then goes on to say that in order to understand
this an explication of the twice repeated actions, indicated above will be necessary. First, talking about the
two creations, he makes use of the part of Sozzini's treatise discussing Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et
sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. [All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made]. To clear the obscurity which was still there in the earlier works, he clearly
points out that the external creation in the Old Testament should be regarded as the creation of the world,
while that in the New Testament means internal creation. This thought recurs several times but the extensiveness
of this part is caused not only by this but also by the fact that here we are given the detailed
interpretation of two Biblical passages of crucial importance (the first chapters in the Epistles to the
Colossians and the Hebrews). It is obviously not a coincidence that these are passages discussed in separate
chapters of De falsa et vera. These details already indicate some degree of independence, which is
also seen in the omission of some parts and the inclusion of new details.
According to the Italian heretic, the expression quod factum est in the sentence Omnia per ipsum
facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est contains a restriction, whereby the meaning of
omnia is limited to the things created by Christ. Dávid omits this explication and, at the same time, in
keeping with the nature of the publication, he amplifies and, as the good pedagogue he is, makes more
vivid those elements of the explicatio that are particularly suitable for the winning of simple believers.
His didactic details speak for themselves: +We cannot read anywhere that Jesus created eyes, ears, hands,
legs or anything like these out of nothing for anyone, but that he restored and cured those that were
already created and corrupted by the devil in hell."87
During the interpretation of the second creation, however, in addition to popularizing Lelio
Sozzini's ideas, Dávid mentions details that are absent or remain unexplained in the treatise of the Italian.
Thus, starting from Is 65 and Ps 50 he meditates at length on the nature of the creation of the new heaven
and the new earth. On the one hand, he metaphorically interprets the said biblical passages, which can be
related to them -- we are the heavens He newly created -- and, following Lelio Sozzini's line, regards
them as spiritual rebirth, reconciliation with God. But he also explains the literal meaning, relating it to
the cosmic renovation which is to come at the last judgement. In the process we often encounter
formulations reminiscent of Servet's Restitutio with nearly literal quotations at some places:
+It is from the sin of the first man
that the great power of the serpent rose
that will cease by the benefice of the
second man. A great pollution happened
+The reason for this re-creation of the heaven
and the earth is the great corruption and pollution
caused by the serpent in heaven, on earth and in
paradise. The heaven was contaminated through the
31

through the serpent in heaven, on earth
and in paradise itself. Intercourse with
the unclean spirit rendered unclean the
heaven, the earth and the terrestrial paradise.
The heaven became unclean since
sin was found in God's angels, as Job
says. The serpent so contaminated and
polluted everything, the sun, the moon
and the stars that for the same reason that
we have to become ash, the heaven
himself, along with the sun, the moon
and the stars will have to be destroyed by
fire on the day of judgement."88
company of the unclean spirit, likewise the earth was
contaminated, the heaven because sin was found in
God's angels as it is written in Job four and 19.
The sun, the moon, the stars are contaminated
and obscured so much that they have to become dirt
like us and consumed by fire. Indeed, hell, death and all
diseases were introduced by him."89
In the process of the interpretation of rebirth the typically Servetian idea that the renovation in the
inner man is a simultaneously spiritual and physical process is leached out. With Dávid, on the contrary,
Sozzini's spiritual notion of +creating new" is dominant, but the effort to blend the ideas of the two
Antitrinitarian predecessors is clearly perceptible.
A similar tendency can be observed while attending to another problem. How has it become
necessary to be reborn for those who are in heaven since angels do not sin? -- Dávid asks on behalf of his
predictable opponents. The answer, in keeping with Lelio Sozzini, but also tangentially related to Servet,
is that while Adam's sin corrupted human nature, the fall of the first angels corrupted their nature. While,
however, Brevis explicatio only briefly mentions that the Scripture is silent about the creation and fall of
the angels, and says very little on their restoration, this silence was visibly problematic for the author of
Rövid útmutatás, who visibly found it difficult to accept this silence and also the fact that this doctrine is
hard to grasp: +If we do not understand how the angels were reconciled with God, we cannot know either
when and how the angels were created and fell, thus it is no wonder we know so little about their
reconciliation and that Christ being their head since the Scripture makes but brief mention of it. The
conditions of man are rather and more openly explained and, therefore, its structure is also given more
clearly in the Scripture because it is more useful and more necessary for us to know these than the
structure and reconciliation of the heavens."90 We shall see later how Dávid's job during the later debates
was made harder by the silence of the Scripture. On the other hand, the fact that Sozzini's treatise still
emphasized, though without elaborating in detail, the necessity of the renovation of the angels meant for
Dávid a point of connection between the ideas of Brevis explicatio and Servet's theory.
Following the order of the said contrasting pairs, the work barely mentions the two births, the two
educations and two lives, and says a little more about the two kinds of death. This part is especially interesting
because if earlier the work relied on Servet to the extent of a sentence or an expression, now this
train of thought in its entirety comes from Restitutio. The way it is utilized is again rather arbitrary here.
The problem is discussed by Servet not for its own sake but the first book of De regeneratione superna
addresses the question whether unbaptized children will be damned. A denial of this leads to the
discussion of the consequences of Adam's sin and of the possibilities of man, the difference between the
two deaths being explicated several times in the process. Dávid uses approximately a page length text of
that long chapter, strictly omitting the comments referring to the basic idea of the chapter, doubtlessly
obscuring thereby also the Servetian genesis of the passage. The following quotation, however, not only
justifies that but allows an insight into the methods of the Hungarian Antitrinitarian as well.
+So that we can show the whole +The first and the second death were both the
32

thing, we shall have to consider the
following: there is a double death just as
John in Revelation mentions the first
death and the second death. Both came
from Adam's sin, but in differing senses.
From Adam's sin the death of the body
follows for everyone, followed by hell
till Christ's judgement, the judgement
destroying death and hell as the same
John teaches it. The cause of this infernal
death is Satan's moving and intrusion
into, and power over, the body as I shall
explain later. Therefore, even small
children, because of this infection born
with us, are subjected to carnal death and
hell... Satan acquired certain power over
man because of Adam's sin, inciting us
to the known evil, and the death of body
and soul will follow from this at the last
judgement. This is said to be the second
and irremissible death."91
result of Adam's sin, but in a different way and in a
different order for each from Adam's sin; corporeal
death and hell were destroyed as it is written in that
book of St. John on Revelation; the cause of this
corporeal death is sin and the power of the devil. From
that eternal death ensues, one that comes upon the
godless and unbelievers in the last judgement, which is
said to be the death of both bodies and souls and which
is never to be forgiven."92
As we can see, Dávid also thinks that the first death follows from Adam's sin only, and that is how
those who personally commit no further sins die and find themselves in the underworld. The second death
is the result of not Adam's sin only but the conscious evil intention of the individual. Still, at the stimulation
of Satan we choose that of our own free will, even though we know sin. Dávid also says that the
second death awaits the godless and faithless but the motive that the godless are consciously, deliberately
godless remains in the background.
This subject concludes a larger unit within the work. +Meditating over all this, let us remember to
witness the true meaning of the Scripture and protect ourselves lest we should put the Scripture into the
sack along with the Antichrist..."93 says Dávid, introducing perhaps the most exciting part of his work, the
hermeneutical treatise laying down in ten articles the rules for correct interpretation of the Bible. These
basic principles are the following:
1. In the Scripture we must strictly distinguish what relates to God and what to man. From
God's viewpoint, for instance, Job is justified in praising the wickedness of his enemies, but from a human
point of view this is still a sin because they violate the commandments.
2. The various statements concerning man (mortal--immortal, pious--wicked, living--dead)
are compatible only if we distinguish what relates to the external and what to the internal man.
3. We must see clearly the difference between the Old and the New Testaments.
4. It does not hurt but is not absolutely necessary for us to know the characteristics of languages.
Very often the illiterate peasant is given the key of David.
tion.
5. The requirement that the sensus litteralis and the context should be taken into considera-
6. We can understand Moses and the prophets only if we interpret them in the light of the
33

New Testament and with a knowledge of Christ.
7. The Scripture sometimes shows things as we can see them, sometimes as they are in
themselves, in their reality before God. This is particularly true for the commandments and the promises.
8. Everything that happened to the Jewish nation has to be interpreted as an example.
9. Gods speaks to us according to our human nature, and He has secrets that He does not
share with us. It is a sin to deal with these.
10. The law and the gospel should not be confused.
It is clear from this scheme that the treatise is burdened with repetitions since the first and the
seventh, and again the third, the sixth, the eighth and the tenth belong closely together. On the other hand,
the line of reasoning departs from the itemized principle within the individual themes. Thus the list cannot
really reflect how rich the treatise is in ideas because, as we shall see, sometimes the reflections under the
pretext of the principle are more important.
The passages discussing the relationship of the Old and New Testaments connect, of course, most
organically to the whole of Rövid útmutatás. Treating the subject with special favour, this is how the
author introduces the third, the longest item: +Because this third article is very important for the true
understanding of the Holy Scripture, I shall write more amply about it and keep to this order in writing."94
After the above it will be no surprise that it is not really ampler writing but translation since this
lengthy part relies in its entirety on Restitutio. Nearly every sentence is literally translated from three
chapters of De legis et evangelii ac Iudaei et Christiani differentiis so that after the original it takes
subtitles as well: The difference of the Old and New Testaments, The Law contains the truth of the body,
the Gospel that of the soul, In the Law the truth of action, in the Gospel that of faith. It relies more heavily
than the parallel chapter of De falsa et vera on the first chapter, while in the case of the other two he
merely translates a few statements deemed to be of crucial importance, such as: the Jewish nation was
given only the external truth, peace on earth, in the law it was lawful to enumerate deeds, in the gospel it
is not. He does not completely adopt Servet's doctrine of justification, and using a formulation different
from Servet's he declares that the elect from among the Jews were saved because they looked upon the
spiritual in the corporeal and were looking forward to the fulfillment by Christ. Since a detailed
demonstration of the adoptions, however, would be too lengthy and full of repetitions, we take two
examples that show that the translator sometimes made changes with regard to Christology.
+They were wearing veils so that +... there was cover before them, so they could
none of them could see the splendour of not see the glory of Christ's face, Eliah covered his face
Christ's face. Eliah covered his face with with the robe, 3.Re. 19. Moses did the same Ex. 3. who
his robe lest he should see Christ's face afterwards could see only his back part through the gap
(3Reg.19). Moses did the same (Ex.3), in the rock, because its fulfillment looked to the future.
who through the covered hole could not Ex., 34."96
see Christ's face, only his back
(Ex.33)."95
+Then for the same reason Moses +When afterwards this Moses spoke to the sons
himself put a veil on his face so that the of Israel, he covered his face lest they should see its
sons of Israel should not see this splendour, because they should not understand the
splendour of Christ on his face: hence inner essence and secret of the laws, indeed, Moses did
also the veil of the letters lest they
34

understand the hidden mysteries of the
inner soul. Indeed, not even Moses
himself was aware of his own
splendour."97
not understand the splendour of his own face. Ex. 34."98
In the first quotation the addition of the clause +because its fulfillment looked to the future"
emphasizes that Moses saw not the real Christ but His figure. In the second the omission of the expression
splendorem illum Christi (this splendour of Christ) clearly reinterprets the original text. According to
Servet, it is Christ's splendour that is visible on Moses' face, with Dávid the inner essence and secret of
the law causes the splendour.
The third article concludes with an explication of the two kinds of circumcision. Needless to say,
Dávid here again relies on Servet. Quoting almost word for word from the book entitled De
circumcisione vera [On the true circumcision] of Restitutio, he describes the difference between corporeal
and spiritual circumcision, using the same method when enumerating the significances of the former. He
omits only one of those listed by Servet, called specialis significatio by the Spaniard. In that it is explained,
on the one hand, that God wanted to signify the promise given to Abraham's family on the
member by which the family is sustained. On the other, this more than anything else can signify the
necessity of the killing of carnal desires.
While numbers six and ten, each a few sentences long, add nothing to the subject, in the eighth
examples illustrate the principle repeated ad nauseam that the Old Testament stories should be regarded
as figures of those in the New. The examples in this case again come from Restitutio, and are partly
identical with those contained in the above mentioned appendix of the chapter De discrimine of De falsa
et vera. The most interesting of these is the three times manifestation of Christ's secrets. The Servetian
Trinity of ante incarnationem [before the incarnation], per incarnationem [by the incarnation], post
resurrectionem [after the resurrection] is replaced in Dávid's work from obvious Christological considerations
by the expressions before birth, in his flesh and after the resurrection.
From the above it is obvious that in Dávid's work the examples start living their own life
sometimes instead of playing the part of the mere illustration of an hermeneutical principle. This tendency
can be observed in the case of the other articles as well. The detailing of the second article eventually
leads to important statements from a Christological point of view: +Likewise there are two kinds of
sayings about our head, the Christ, built up spiritually, endowed by God the Father with power and
omnipotence, He is the equal of His Father because He is sat on His right, and He is smaller inasmuch as
He was given this power, kingdom and lordship by his Father, and in the Godhead no other person is
equal with God the Father."99 The same happens in the fifth, where the truth of the thesis culminates in
the correct interpretation of the second part of the Epistle to the Philippians, +the first, middle and
concluding parts of which show that it is about the man Jesus Christ and no other."100 The function of the
ninth is nothing but proving that +it is sheer foolishness to meditate over the explication of the substance
of the Godhead".101 For this can lead to dangerous errors in the following order: being, person, nature,
incarnation, connecting together of persons, the approaching and sharing of two natures, two Christs,
false God, the obscuring of the apostolic scriptures, Babylonian captivity, peril.
Thus the really exciting discussions appear not while the emphasized points are being illustrated
or applied, but exactly when the line of reasoning diverges from these. That is how during the explication
of the eighth the principle is put on record that during the exegesis of the Bible the context of the given
passage should be considered, and that the freedom of interpretation cannot be restricted by any tradition
or authority: +...Christians... persistently follow the even flow of the Scripture whether there was
someone who explained it that way or not. For they know that the Scripture is committed to neither this
one nor that but to our master, the Christ..."102 Both statements often appear in other works by Dávid and
35

the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians.
It is interesting, however, that Ferenc Dávid, who made ample use of Restitutio while writing his
work, does not elevate the thoughts formulated in the 1542 preface of the Paginus Bible edited by Servet
to the level of principles. The preface explains that due to the richness of the Hebrew language what we
read in the Old Testament cannot be translated into other languages. Therefore, only one who knows
Hebrew and the history of the Jews can undertake to interpret the writings of the prophets. He emphasizes
the importance of the history of the Jews by claiming that it is impossible to properly interpret the
prophets without a thorough study of the historical books of the Old Testament. These conditions lacking,
the interpreter eliminates from the prophecies the literal and the historical meanings (sensus litteralis and
sensus historicus), looking everywhere for the figurative meaning (sensus misticus) only. Thus, according
to Servet, this latter sense can be clearly discovered only if based on the often neglected historical meaning.
During the later debates, while interpreting the psalms or the books of the prophets, Ferenc Dávid
also follows this principle, but here he does not declare it. The discussions relating the differences
between the Old and New Testaments, or the requirement to look for a spiritual meaning beyond the
literal in the Scripture are only similar to, but definitely not identical with, the Servetian rehabilitation of
sensus historicus. And we have seen in the fourth article that the Transylvanian Antitrinitarian is not so
strict about the knowledge of languages as was his Spanish predecessor.
The reason for that is mostly the popularizing tendency of the Hungarian text. Dávid, also considerate
of +simple readers", does not wish to scare lay readers by declaring that they have no competence to
independently interpret the Bible because they do not know Hebrew or Greek. This would contradict the
tendency of Antitrinitarian propaganda, which preaches simplicity and intelligibility.
So the correct interpretation of the Scripture in this work of Ferenc Dávid is based not on learning
or knowledge, nor does it depend on whether the interpreter has mastered certain procedures, but relies
crucially on ethical criteria. He expounds this in several places, while vividly formulating the quest of the
interpreter not restricted by clerical authority: +Someone might raise a question at this point. Is thus all
the Scripture to be explained in a different way, @külemben not as the letter shows it, and is the meaning
of Christ's soul to be found in all Scripture? Who shows us that meaning, and in what book, in what exegete
Doctor are we to find the true meaning of the Scripture? Furthermore, these kinds of exegesis, on
the other hand, bring us to the opinions of men and commit us to follow the meaning recovered from their
thought, thus freedom being given for every one to freely and after their own heads explicate the
Scripture, which is the cause of many a heresy and controversy."103 We have seen what he thinks of the
opinion of the exegete doctors. It is no less interesting what he thinks of the controversies. It is in the
conclusion concentrating exclusively on this problem that he most exhaustively spells out that he regards
conflicts and contests as natural phenomena, though, as it also turns out, not in the long run but only until
the truth he confesses to is victorious. In that sense altercations are caused only by that +the devil in hell,
who is the head of darkness, strongly guards those he keeps in it and resents if, freed from that, they are
brought to the true knowledge of Christ and His word..."104 Thus Dávid is convinced that this is a
transient phenomenon only, and he believes to prove with the examples of the prophets, Christ and the
apostles that the victory of light over darkness has always been at the cost of great struggle. He offers the
consolation that it is better for his readers to struggle with the Scripture than later with remorse.
What guarantees, however, that the author of the work is in possession of the true knowledge of
the Scripture, that he has really considered +the true straightness and flow of the Scripture"? Dávid
answers this question by describing the process of his illumination. He relates that a believer is first
bewildered under the weight of the many contradicting biblical passages, trying in vain to reconcile them
until he sees that since he cannot succeed without God's help he must turn to Him. This is the first stage
of elucidation. This is followed by the second, where man denies himself and understands the word: +In
such denial of ourselves we shall be true disciples of Christ, taking up the cross, following Him, being
instructed by Him, and coming to the Lord, the obscurity of our eyes and the hardness of our heart will be
36

taken away."105 Thus what we arrive at is not the Reformers' principle of scriptura sacra sui ipsius
interpres [the Scripture is its own interpreter], but a view that clearly connects the correct interpretation of
the Bible to ethical criteria. Further details reveal that for Ferenc Dávid this connection implies a certain
exclusivity. Article Four for him merely resolves the connection of true hermeneutics to knowledge
instead of representing the Scripture as available for all. The lesson, on the contrary, is that no one can decipher
the inner secret meaning of the Scripture without being given Dávid's key. At the end of the line of
thought he declares, +God has hidden the meaning of his word under the secret signs of the letter lest
dogs and pigs should roam freely in that garden of roses but that it should belong to those who sell all
they possess and, buying this land, do not travel to trade in foreign parts.106
We are obviously in the vicinity of the Anabaptist spiritualistic trends of the radical Reformation,
and similar ideas can be found in Restitutio as well. It would seem, however, that the presence of this
world of ideas is not independent of the influence of Sebastian Castellio, the famous humanist of Basle.
As we shall see later, the Transylvanians knew and made use of Castellio's Bible translation of 1551,
which contains two texts important for our present discussion: the preface to Edward VI of England and a
short hermeneutical treatise entitled Quae via sit recta ad intelligendas sacras scripturas [Which is the
right way to understand the Scripture]. The dedication complains that although the age, when the author
lives, is as erudite as no other, still it knows nothing of the Gospel. On the testimony of the prophets, he
claims that its only reason is impietas. Thus the meaning of the Scripture is not to be solved with the help
of the sciences (artes), since the enlightening spirit teaches only those who are permeated with the love of
God, who are pious and obedient. The said treatise spells it out even more clearly. He explains that just as
man is made up of body and soul so the Scripture consists of littera (letter) and spiritus (soul). Just as
animals are capable of seeing the body of man and hearing his voice but are unable to grasp the meaning
of his speech, so the impii (godless) are able to perceive the letter and sound (litteram et vocem) only of
the Scripture, but they are unable to understand its meaning. Therefore, only those are able to interpret the
Scripture, irrespective of persons, who are weak, humble and, having given up corporeal judgement and
their own will, are obedient to God. It is extremely interesting that here the thought, later expounded in
more detail, appears namely that Christ spoke to his wider audience in parables but explained everything
later for his disciples. +Christ spoke to the outsiders with many a parable, that is figuratively and in
hidden words; for his disciples, however, that is for those who believed, who had love in themselves, who
were obedient and followed him, would explain everything later in detail. Mt 11.7., Jn 5."107
The relation between Rövid útmutatás and the Castellio texts just quoted is obvious, but a definitive
picture of the extent and nature of the reception cannot been formed. For we do not know whether
Dávid knew the works (Contra libellum Calvini [Against Calvin's book] and De arte dubitandi [On the
art of doubting]) that contained the ideas of the humanist from Basle in a more mature and more detailed
form but did not appear in print during the sixteenth century. Yet, we shall not limit our attention only to
the works known by Ferenc Dávid with absolute certainty since viewed from a more elaborated notion the
differences between Rövid útmutatás and the accompanying texts of Castellio's Bible -- despite the
mutual priority of the ethical criteria -- will become perceptible.108 Two details should be particularly
emphasized at this point.
It will have been seen from the above that spiritualistic traits were strongly present in the ideas of
the Basle master of Ferenc Dávid. The pair spiritus--littera appear not only as two constitutional elements
of the Scripture, but sometimes the whole Scripture is degraded into letter. In this context it is customary
to pick out the line of reasoning from his dialogue on free will, according to which spiritus appears for
man in three historically changing grades: first as the law of the Old Testament, second as the new law
given in the New Testament and third in itself as the perfect breath (afflatus perfectus). Thus spiritus
operates outside the Scripture as well, and this notion clearly undermines the doctrine of scriptura sacra
sui ipsius interpres. Similar ideas appeared in Ferenc Dávid's works, indeed at one point the biblical
passage (1Cor 2) Castellio had also regarded as crucial is in the focus. +The external letter of the
Scripture and its form is discarded and ended because the true meaning of Christ and His word is placed
37

in life and soul, Saint John Part Six, and no-one understands the secrets of Christ's word unless Christ's
spirit is with them because that examines the depths of God's secrets, as Saint Paul says in Part Two of his
second epistle to the Corinthians."109 We cannot see him, however, so consistently adhering to the
hermeneutical consequence as Castellio had done in his treatise certainly read by the Hungarian
Antitrinitarian. It should be deemed important that the passage just quoted about Christ's disciples getting
instruction besides the Scripture is not included in Rövid útmutatás. In that sense we have the presence of
a downgraded, paler spiritualism with Dávid, appearing on two levels. First in his emphasizing the
mutually contradictory nature of various biblical passages on seeing which man is +bewildered", and
secondly in that consequently the person of the interpreter, and the road he has to make to get to the true
meaning of the Scripture, assume a crucial role.
On the other hand, significant differences follow from the optimistic anthropology which was formulated
in Castellio's more mature works and which was rather far from Dávid's world of ideas. The selfdenial
that the Hungarian Antitrinitarian demanded from his followers meant first of all getting rid of
human wisdom since +human cleverness and artfulness do not go well with God's word and instead of
this giving freedom for one's own and particular@kiváltképpen való explanation, all were ordered to
follow the explanation of God's spirit and to find the true meaning from the process of the whole good
Scripture."110 Castellio, on the contrary, forms a much more optimistic picture of the possibilities of man.
Though the fall has deprived him of liberum arbitrium, it has left libera voluntas intact and this makes it
possible for him to form judgements with the help of logos, spiritus and ratio, revealed in him and
virtually identical with each other. Thus with him everyday common sense, called assorted names
(Communis sensus, humanum iudicium, sensus hominis, sensus et intellectus hominis) is not obliged to
lay down its arms, indeed, it will become the most important principle, deeply permeated, of course, with
ethical elements for two reasons. For, on the one hand, it admits teachings that harmonize with a good and
gracious God and, on the other, it has to discard corporeal affections if it wants to be revealed. Thus the
assumption of an ethical disposition which makes the correct scriptural interpretation possible is
necessary exactly so that the communis sensus be operational.
These thoughts are not present in such explicit forms in the texts certainly known by Ferenc
Dávid. The ethical elements in them are not intertwined as yet with the apotheosis of communis sensus.
This may have had something to do with the presence of the prophetic tendency of Castellio's thoughts,
manifested also in the preface dedicated to the young King of England. The belief in a vates, capable of
making decisions in debated issues and endowed with special status, softened the difficulties in the
exegesis of the Scripture to transient, and blunted the urgency of the rules valid in the long run. Even so,
in staking out the right road indicated in the title of the short hermeneutical treatise, the element of
understanding, unlike in the case of Dávid, has a role: the first task of the believers is to believe as true
what is in the Scripture. Because not believing, they will not understand it either but will add profane
writings to sacred things. This is followed by the second element, identical with that in Dávid: man must
subject his will to God's. Common as the emphasis may be in their worlds of ideas on the contradictory
and obscure nature of the Scripture, Dávid, unlike Castellio, is scared by this and is led to the paradox
statement that the interpreter acts correctly if his presence in the interpretation means the annihilation of
his own self. This takes him near to the principle of the reformers but since the moral preconditions of
assuming the position are not automatically given, his position cannot be entirely identified with that. On
the other hand, the moral requirements (wearing the crucifix, self-denial) are not actualized to the extent
that they could not be metaphorically interpretable. Thus correct scriptural interpretation will not be the
privilege of the saints who have turned their backs to the sinful world as is the case with the Anabaptists.
The exclusivity, however, is not totally resolved since the required moral is not naturally given to man as
it is in Castellio's optimistic anthropology.
Thus we can see very well that the system revealed in the hermeneutical treatise of Rövid
útmutatás is full of contradictions and is to some extent immature. These contradictions, however, will
significantly diminish later. The emphasis on the ethical criteria will prove to be an enduring tendency but
38

manifested with varying intensity. At the same time Dávid, giving up his thesis on the obscurity of the
Scripture, returns to the reformist view that most of the biblical passages are clear and unanimous. This
clearly resulted in the procedure, which Castellio thought was hopeless, that the obscure passages are to
be explained with clear passages of similar meaning. On the other hand, such a view of the Scripture
exiles spiritualism just as it does exclusivity since everyone can understand the things necessary for
salvation. Thus the views of Ferenc Dávid take a turn toward the biblicism so characteristic of this phase
of development of Antitrinitarianism elsewhere as well.
This little treatise, then, can be regarded as a superbly exciting document, full of individual ideas,
of Ferenc Dávid's +Sturm und Drang" period. Its interest comes exactly from the fact that it formulates
thoughts, if immaturely, that he later would be obliged to drop. And, of course, from the subjectivity that
uses even the revelation of the author's inner struggles for the purposes of propaganda.
The hermeneutical treatise is followed by the exegesis of a much debated biblical passage, Gen
1:26 (And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.) In that he clearly turns against the
traditional Trinitarian interpretations but puts a distance between himself and the Tritheist views as well.
At the same time at some point he makes attempts at individual solutions that distinguish him from contemporary
Antitrinitarians who denied Christ's preexistence. The discussion of the first problem, of the
divine name (Elohim) used in the said biblical passage also contains such an element. Not content with
remembering that the use of plural was customary in the case of God and other dignities, Dávid looks for
other reasons as well. He believes that Elohim is used instead of El so that Jesus Christ's +image" be
expressed in the name. He discusses in a similar sense the reason why the verb is in the plural, giving
three reasons. For one, man was created with a special intention, which means not only that he was given
a share of the Creator's wisdom but is particularly the expression of His intention to re-create man
through Christ. Secondly, the plural here refers again to Christ, +for whom and by whom He creates all,
for the first born of all created beings is the mirror and the example in creation as in part Seven of the
book of wisdom, first Solomon 8. Third 24."111 The Old Testament describes creation anthropomorphically,
saying that God's hands created the earth and His fingers the heavens because all these
represented Christ, who is +the visible image and mirror of the invisible God." The third reason for the
plural is that God may have been talking the angels +not in a sense that the Angels were creators, or
helping assistants to God in creation, but because they were wearing Christ's likeness, in whom and by
whom God wanted to bring all His acts to perfection".112 Dávid finds several meanings in the expression
+to our image and likeness". It means, first, that God gave man of His properties in a degree surpassing
all other beings; then again, this passage also points to the future when the believer +through Christ is
really restored to the image of God". Thirdly, and partially repeating the first point, he explains that the
dignity of mankind is expressed in it, but he concentrates mainly on the thought that the glory of man
reborn through Christ will be greater than that of the angels. Very interesting here is the Servetian idea
that the believers will judge the world, which cannot be said of the angels.
In addition to this detail coming from the Spanish heretic, the whole interpretation is deeply
permeated with elements from his work. Thus relating the divine name Elohim to Christ is an idea
minutely explicated in De trinitatis erroribus [On the errors of the Trinity]113 recurring in Restitutio as
well.114 The same can be said of the search for the deeper meaning of the plural. Also the expression +the
visible image and mirror of the invisible God" was lifted by Dávid from Servetian texts. Instead of citing
a great number of passages, let it suffice now to quote as an example only one from Restitutio, explaining
the anthropomorphic image of God in the Old Testament, which was obviously the source of Dávid's text
just quoted: +It is not without significance that we can often read in the Old Testament that corporeal eyes
saw hands, eyes, face, legs on God and that no such thing can be found in the New Testament, indeed, it
says that God is spirit. The explanation is obvious: then Christ's person was represented with God. At that
time there was no real distinction between the Father and the Son but the bodily forms that now appear in
the Son were attributed to God Himself."115
39

The transpositions are, however, not mechanical. Dávid attempts to put the new Christology in effect,
which is incompatible with the Servetian view of Christ's real existence as logos in the Old
Testament, and which is particularly far from the later version of this view, full of Platonic elements,
assuming this Logos Christ as the arche-form of all beings. It is very interesting that Dávid uses a procedure
during the reinterpretation that Servet had been fond of using. We have seen that Servet had read a
complicated system of figures out of the Old Testament foreshadowing the New, and the Hungarian
Antitrinitarian was doing the same. In the case of this biblical passage, however, the applied procedure
gets a different dimension since it is not the really existing Logos Christ that symbolizes Jesus Christ who
was to be incarnated later, but God's way of action refers to what was to come to pass later in Christ. This
not quite insignificant difference reinterprets the applied Servetian procedures but without hindering their
application. Thus, despite the Christological differences, the thought that man's creation includes the
mystery of the later re-creation could find its way into Dávid's work.
It would appear that such an interpretation of this biblical passage was formed by Ferenc Dávid
independently. This is the product of the period when he was still strongly influenced by Servetian
Christology, formulating the first attempts at reconciliation, but it would persistently survive in his later
works as well. Conspicuously, the following explanation can be found in De falsa et vera, a record of the
joint Polish--Hungarian view: +And if they ask whom God ordered when He said `let us make', lest we
get involved in empty speculations we shall answer either that He ordered the angels since He often used
their labours in the days of the Old Testament or that the verb `let us make' is not the word of the giver of
orders but of one preparing for heavy work in himself and that is why Moses used the plural instead of the
singular according to the Hebrew custom, as it is shown in that and in the following chapters as
well."116 He mentions that the Rabbinates unanimously teach that in the Old Testament God created
everything through the angels. The publication regards this statement as more compatible with the
Scripture than that of his opponents.
It should be obvious from all this that Dávid had closer ties to the Servetian tradition than had De
falsa et vera and these ties existed till the early 1570s. It is only in his Az egy a magától való felséges
Istenral [On the great God who exists by Himself]117 published in 1571 that Dávid fully accepts the
interpretation of the biblical passage in question as given in De falsa et vera.
Since the conclusion does not contain significantly new ideas, and since we have touched upon it
as far as necessary, it will not be discussed it detail. It is much more important to mention the most
important conclusions of the analysis of the Latin, Polish and Hungarian texts mentioned in this chapter.
It will have become clear from the above that the chapter De discrimine of De falsa et vera,
Grzegorz Pawel's Rozdzial starago Testamentum and Dávid's Rövid útmutatás are closely related works.
Nor can it be doubted that Restitutio christianismi was heavily relied upon when all these three works
were written. Yet, it is also clear that the treatment of the same subject caused different problems to come
to the surface in the Polish and in the Hungarian works. Thus the discussion of the differences between
the Old and the New Testaments was intertwined with socio-ethical questions in one case and with
hermeneutical problems plus the effort to transplant the new Christology in the other. This parallel
excellently shows the positions of the two movements at approximately the same time, and the chapter
De discrimine of their joint work should obviously be regarded as the concise summary of the minimum
that both partied considered acceptable.
Of course, it is again impossible to tell who was the author of the Latin chapter and whether its
writing or that of an earlier version had in this case, too preceded the writing of the works in the vernacular.
After the analogy of the chapters considered earlier, I am inclined to accept this. Furthermore, it
would seem probable that the author of the concise, to the point version in De falsa et vera was
Blandrata.118
40

More important than establishing the authorship, however, is to draw the conclusions from the
point of view of intellectual history because these might prove interesting for the development not only of
Hungarian but of European Antitrinitarianism.
It is important from a specially Hungarian aspect that the publication of Rövid útmutatás made it
obvious that the views of the Antitrinitarians and Melius differ from each other in more than Trinitology
in the strict sense. Though this view of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments appears in
Refutatio scripti Petri Melii and Rövid magyarázat, this is the first time that it could be read in such
detailed discussion. Although Melius and Dávid would not significantly differ over this issue later either,
it has become clear that their sources (the Swiss reformers on the one hand, and Servet and the Anabaptists
inspiring him, on the other) influenced them to formulate radically different conceptions. Thus it
also became possible for the Hungarian Antitrinitarians to diverge from the views of the Helvetian oriented
reformers in the fields of moral philosophy and social ethics.
It is also very important for the development of Antitrinitarianism both in Hungary and abroad
that the texts under discussion, despite accepting the new Christology, endeavoured to make use of
Servet's main work.
These observations should be interpreted in the light of the view, dominant among scholars today,
that the writing and the propagation all over Europe of Lelio Sozzini's famous work opened a new phase
of European Antitrinitarianism, which was sharply separated from the Servetian period. According to this
view, in this period very little else besides the dogmatic arguments formulated in Servet's earlier works
was utilized. The Italian and other heretic groups under the influence of Lelio then Fausto Sozzini deemed
the criticism of sophist terms and the explanation of the appearance of the dogma of Trinity acceptable
only. They did not accept Restitutio, which under the influence of prisca theologia represented the
platonizing version of Antitrinitarianism, alien for them. (Celio Secundo Curione is usually mentioned as
the only exception.) All this is explained by two reasons. On the one hand, it is emphasized that the
Italian heretics, interested mainly in ethical issues, were averse to the complicated speculations abundant
in the Servet's main work. On the other hand, the representatives of the period were the reformers who
were related to the Aristotelian tradition of Padua, different from that of Servet, who was inspired by a
philological, critical spirit, and who practised a rationalistic exegesis using the logics of common sense.119
This view is based not only on an analysis of dogmas but also makes use of the reflections
wherein the sixteenth century Antitrinitarians interpret their own roles and their relations to the preceding
period.120 At the same time Valerio Marchetti parallels these with a passage by Ferenc Dávid in Refutatio
propositionum Petri Melii (1568): +We ask where did we ever say with Arius that Christ is a creature
begotten by God before the creation of the world; where did we say with Sabelius that the father, the son
and the spirit are merely the three names of the one God; where did we say with Ebion and Plotinus that
Christ is the son of Joseph; where did we say with Servetus that the word was begotten by the father from
the three purest and not created elements; where did we say, I ask, with Gentile that the eternal word is
the essence born of the unborn essence of the Father?"121
These texts certainly can be related to each other but in the case of Dávid's passage it should be
observed that he does not dismiss the whole of Servet's doctrine. He states very clearly and concretely
that he has never taught that the verbum was born of the three purest uncreated elements i.e. he has never
been convinced by the pantheistic elements in Servet's doctrine. Thus he refuses Servet only in the sense
that he does not accept the Christology in Restitutio, deeply permeated with neoplatonism.122 No doubt,
Dávid realized that the new explanation of John's Gospel had brought new solutions, different from the
previous ones. It is to be emphatically pointed out at the same time that the acceptance of the new
Christology did not necessarily mean the rejection of the entire doctrine formulated in Christianismi
restitutio, and there was a possibility for its reinterpretatio as well. Although it has been known for some
time that the Transylvanian publication in 1569 entitled De regno Christi made extensive use of Servet's
41

work, this detail is somehow lost in the above conceptions. And if the presence of the ideas of Restitutio
can be indicated in an important chapter of the representative Polish--Hungarian Antitrinitarian work as
well as in the respective vernacular publications, the forceful emphasis on the element of reinterpretation
will be justified. All this, of course, is remarkable with respect to the later history of Servet's work and
will modify the view now dominant in the literature on the subject that the work of the mature Servet had
no significant reception.123
Looking for the Leitmotif of the treatment one probably thinks of the moral philosophical discussions
in the source work. On the level of moral theology both works put forward an imitatio Christi based
ultimately on the New Testament and allowing several interpretations. This and the god--man relationship
fundamentally changed after the appearance of the Man Jesus Christ can be regarded as the common
element that made the use of Restitutio possible even if opinions radically differed concerning the
previous status of Jesus Christ. Thus the new Christology could be viewed as one that puts the moral
theology formulated by Servet on a more solid and more consistent basis. At least that is the dominating
tendency in the works of Grzegorz Pawel. In Rövid útmutatás, however, a more complicated situation
should be expected. It will perhaps have been made clear by the analysis above that while the Polish
Antitrinitarian had a clarified, clear cut and Christological position, this was not the case with Ferenc
Dávid at all. Although, on the one hand, it can be said that by translating the crucially important parts of
Brevis explicatio into Hungarian he eliminated a considerable amount of the obscurities and ambivalences
in the earlier works but, on the other, he did not give up the idea of trying to reconcile Lelio Sozzini's
Christology with that of Servet, the latter cleansed of the Platonic traits. The denial of Christ's
preexistence became the basic tenet of his dogmatics, but through the ample use of the text of Restitutio
he embraced details reminiscent of the +old" concept. As we have said, these are not to be regarded as
transient phenomena and as it will be shown, it is exactly the dogged insistence on Servetian phraseology
that makes his views individual.
All this makes one pause to think about the hermeneutical procedures formulated and followed in
Ferenc Dávid's work. We have seen that getting acquainted with the procedure followed in Brevis
explicatio did not solve for him the tormenting questions of interpreting the Scripture. That is how, using
the commentary that worked with a rationalist exegesis, he arrived at a profoundly subjectivist principle.
But the distrustfulness towards human cleverness seen in the treatise is not quite identical with the
biblicism of Grzegorz Pawel. For with Dávid this subjectivism, in addition to meaning that the capability
of interpretation was bound to morality, also implied that one was justified to look for independent
solutions. That is why Rövid útmutatás is a most important work. Together with the related texts it raises
problems that were important for the development of both Transylvanian and European
Antitrinitarianism. Its lessons must be remembered when outlining the mutual relationships and the
history of the development of the various types and generations of Antitrinitarianism.
Fausto Sozzini's reception and Transylvanian Antitrinitarian Christology
The relationship between Servetian Antitrinitarianism and that represented by the Italians,
however, cannot be clarified without examining another explication of Chapter 1 of John's gospel,
Explicatio primi capitis Ioannis, which was also published in Transylvania first. This work, in addition to
containing a more developed argumentation, also formulates details that are not present in Brevis
explicatio.124 Of these we regard the following the most important. Arguing with the thesis that John
wrote his gospel against Cerinthus and Ebion, the work claims that the apostle's purpose was not a debate
with the said heretics but he wanted to convince people that Jesus was the son of God and whoever believed
in him, would be saved. The author, who also uses rhetorical and poetic means in his argument, not
only lists the biblical passages he considers analogous but the logical acceptability of the given thesis is
42

equally important. It is particularly remarkable that he explains the rise of the dogma of Trinity not only
with the contamination of heathen philosophers and Christianity in general, but clearly relates it with
Platonic philosophy in particular. The literature on the subject is in agreement in that the said features are
novelties in Explicatio. There are, however, conflicting views on who the author of the work was, when it
was written and when it was printed in Transylvania.
These are the questions to be considered below and starting from these, we shall attempt to describe
the Christology of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians till the early 1570s, taking only the most
important documents (disputes, works) into consideration. An understanding of the opposing views and
also of the arguments we are going to formulate demand that the unquestionable facts serving as a starting
point be reviewed. The first edition of Explicatio, described first by Lech Szczucki,125 is unquestionably
identical with the text published in Raków in 1618 and later in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum as the
work of Fausto Sozzini. There are divergences, at the same time, between the version published in
Transylvania and the textual variant that Franciscus Iunius published in his Defensio catholicae doctrinae
de S. Trinitate..., in Heidelberg in 1591. The most important of these is that the Heidelberg edition lacks
the introductory section of the dedication to the reader. Thus the edition of Iunius contains neither the part
that says that he published this work at the urging of friends nor the following: +We are not giving our
name because, although we are in a country where we need not fear human repercussions, let us know the
opinion of others on this little work before we give our name."126 Nor is it to be doubted that the first
edition appeared at Gyulafehérvár in the printing shop of Hoffhalter, which published Antitrinitarian
works between September 1568 and August 1569. It is, however, mysterious that the work bears the title
Liber secundus and that page lettering begins with K. Copies of the work have survived separately as well
as bound together with other Antitrinitarian works, but it has not been possible so far to find out what it
was a sequel to, that is to say, what might have been liber primus and whether it existed at all. The above
facts, then, as well as the notions about the nature of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism are the basis for the
different views concerning the origin of the work.
Antal Pirnát127 says that Explicatio grew out of the dispute at Gyulafehérvár between Melius and
the Antitrinitarians in March, 1568. It was on the last two days of that dispute that attention was focussed
on the first chapter of John's Gospel. It was during that debate that Melius put forward the new argument,
surprising the Antitrinitarian camp, that the Apostle John wrote his gospel against the Ebionites who
denied the divinity of Christ. According to Pirnát, the description of the dispute clearly indicates that
Ferenc Dávid and his friends were confused by this line of reasoning and were unable to do anything with
such an explanation of the origin of the text. During, however, the workshop activity that followed the
debate, the answer was found and that would explain why the Antitrinitarian protocols128 of the debate,
published as early as the first half of 1568, already reads as follows: +Cerinthus and Ebion were of a
different opinion than that the Man Christ, as Melius says, became god before Mary. This is proved by
Irenaeus in Chapter 19 of his Book 3, where he says that Cerinthus taught that some eternal Christ had descended
into Jesus and that consequently he divided Christ in two. It is false, therefore, what is quoted
from Hieronymus and others about the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus. It is also false that John wrote his
own gospel for that purpose and this is indicated by John himself in Chapter 20 where he says he wrote
the gospel so that we believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God."129
So here we have an argument that Explicatio also contains and all this has made Pirnát look for
the author in a person who spent the spring-summer of 1568 in Transylvania. His reasons for it are the
fact that the author refers to the urging of friends and also the remark that he lives in a country where he
need not fear from human repercussions. That is why he gives no credit to the later statement by Fausto
Sozzini, in which the latter attributed the work to himself, and he also regards the early correspondence of
the Italian Antitrinitarian as proving that he had no copy of the work from 1565 till May 1568 because on
May 9, 1568 he was still begging Camillo Sozzini to send him the manuscript.130 Thus Pirnát believes it is
inconceivable that the work, which appeared in August 1568, should have been complemented by Fausto
Sozzini in such a short time, adding to it a preface that would make him appear to be staying in
43

Transylvania and that he should have sent it to Gyulafehérvár to be printed. (The publishing date of
August 1568 is made probable by the fact that Refutatio propositionum Petri Melii, bound to which the
greatest number of copies have survived, appeared at that time.) Pirnát also says that the style of the work,
more verbose than in the other works of the Italian philosopher, also argues against the authorship of
Fausto Sozzini. In addition, the method of the treatise, using logical and historical arguments, is also alien
to the later works of Sozzini. Thus firmly denying that the author is Fausto Sozzini, he suggests Johann
Sommer and/or Ferenc Dávid from among the Transylvanians as the author.
On the other hand, since Lech Szczucki drew attention to the Warsaw copy, most of the specialists
are of the opinion that the Transylvanian edition is the first publication of Fausto Sozzini's
work.131 Szczucki's conclusions even further confirm the notion that the earlier version of the text is the
one that Franciscus Iunius published in 1591. According to that view, this version was written much
earlier, sometime in 1562-63 in Basle or in Zürich. Its existence would seem to be indicated most clearly
by the dialogues of Bernardino Ochino, published in Basle in 1563, since these contain the argument that
John the Apostle did not write his gospel against Ebion and Cerinthus. Then again, its existence is further
proved by letters from the 1560s in which Fausto Sozzini asks his friends to send him the text. This text
was then, somewhere in the late sixties, complemented with a dedication adjusted to the conditions in
Transylvania and, after the stylistic changes of Celio Secundo Curione, was published in Transylvania.
Opinions, however, differ on the date of the Gyulafehérvár edition. Marchetti holds that the first
edition was published bound together with Refutatio propositionum Petri Melii and because this work
contains the theses intended for the Synod at Torda, formulated at Várad on August 22, 1568, it was, he
believes, published after August 22, 1568. The fact that the publication does not respond to the Synod at
Torda would indicate the terminus ante quem (November 14). According to Marchetti, printing the work
in the autumn of 1568 was made actual by the fact that Fausto Sozzini was expected in Transylvania for
1569. Thus he also can explain why Explicatio did not get into De falsa et vera published in July 1569:
obviously arriving too late, there was no time for it to be included in that book.
Giving no closer date in the first +report", Lech Szczucki dated the work to 1567-68. Later he
would move this date nearer to 1567.132 For he noticed that Jan Lasicki wrote the following to Béze on
April 20, 1568 from Heidelberg: +Let the Lord give you, the interpreter of the Scripture, the same spirit
filled with which the Apostle John wrote his gospel about Christ's eternal divinity. Ours deny this and say
that the entire first chapter of John's gospel is about the Man Christ. I have amply shown how truly they
teach this in my writing that I wrote against Grzegorz Pawel, the prince of the Sarmata heretics."133 The
Polish scholar assumes that in this lost work of his, Lasicki differed with the Polish translation based on
the version of Explicatio issued at Gyulafehérvár and which appeared after the Latin version, according to
a later statement of Fausto Sozzini. Thus the Latin text naturally must have left the printing press
considerably earlier.
Antonio Rotondo134 starts from another observation, making use of the following passage in the
preface dated to August 1568 of the work entitled De aeterno dei filio of Josias Simler, a theologian from
Zürich: +This book of mine might have been published perhaps in a clearer and ampler form if, due to the
great distance, on the one hand, and, on the other, the shrewdness of the enemy because they hardly suffer
that their works fall into our hands, the books through which these impious doctrines are propagated had
not come to me after long delays. For my three books on the eternal son had been printed when I received
at last Ferenc Dávid's book against Péter Melius, and certain writings by Petrus Gonesius, and an
anonymous explication of the first chapter of John's gospel, a hand-copied part of which a good man had
sent me previously."135 According to Rotondo, since book one of the work contains the refusal of the
Lelio Sozzini version, the anonymous interpretation of John's gospel can be the work of Fausto Sozzini
only. Simler's work certainly left the printing shop in August 1568 since in one of his letters early in
September he mentions it as just published. We can add that Bullinger sent the work, complete and ready,
to Béze on August 24, 1568.136 So, according to this line of reasoning, Explicatio must have been
44

published much earlier than August.
Below we are going to put forward further evidence to support the view of Szczucki and Rotondo
and, on the other hand, we shall consider the way the treatise was integrated into the philosophy of the
Transylvanian Antitrinitarians. We shall examine which are the ideas whose presence can be indicated in
the Latin and Hungarian works of the Transylvanians and which are those that are apparently neglected.
During this, we shall point out a number of characteristics of the Transylvanian edition ignored so far and
shall attempt to explain why this important treatise was omitted from De falsa et vera, a publication
meant to be representative.
The view of Szczucki and Rotondo would seem to be supported first of all by our observation that
the presence of Explicatio can be indicated in the works of Antitrinitarians in Transylvania from autumn
1567. Lack of space prevents the quotation of all the relevant material and perhaps it will be enough to
mention two works. In Rövid útmutatás, considered above, Ferenc Dávid, in addition to blending the
ideas of Lelio Sozzini and Servet, makes use of Explicatio as well. Thus he defines the purpose of writing
the gospel completely in this spirit: +...it is clearly shown here wherefore St. John wrote his gospel
because in part twenty of the gospel he says: All these are written so that you believe that Jesus was the
son of God and that you faithfully take eternal life in his name."137 As we can see, Dávid does not
mention the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus but he adds a detail instead which is absent from Lelio
Sozzini's treatise. He also uses the thought of Explicatio that the beginning of the gospel can be regarded
as an imitation of Genesis 1:1: +Therefore Moses writes that in the beginning God created the world, and
so he shows the creation of the external world according to time. Similarly, St. John gives an account of
the creation of Christ's kingdom, the renovation of the faithful at a certain time, according to the order of
creation, just as Moses explains the external creation according to order, in what order and way it came
into being."138 Instead of further quoting Ferenc Dávid, let us mention another author, István Császmai.
He published his work Thordai Sándor András irására való felelet [Reply to the writing of S.A.
Thordai]139 positively in January or February of 1568, in which he already used Explicatio. Like Ferenc
Dávid, he also defines the purpose of the apostle in its spirit and relies on it nearly verbatim when arguing
in the following way: +If in the beginning of his gospel he spoke of some other Christ or logos which
before the Man Christ would have been second person in the Trinity or who afterwards would have
assumed the human person, St. John would in no way have kept silent about it, indeed he would have
related the acts in the Old Testament of this logos, but he mentions those not with one word but only
those that He did while walking the earth..."140
On these grounds and on the basis of the arguments formulated by Marchetti, Rotondo and
Szczucki, it would seem inconceivable that the author of this work was a Transylvanian responding to the
religious dispute at Gyulafehérvár. Some of its arguments had been used by Transylvanian
Antitrinitarians141 long before the debate and that again supports the view that its author was Fausto
Sozzini, and it was written much earlier, outside of Transylvania. On the other hand, Pirnát's observation
that the most important arguments of the work were not used by the Antitrinitarian party at the religious
dispute at Gyulafehérvár, obviously needs some explanation. For if they used this work, at least in
manuscript, then it is rather mysterious why they did not use its arguments to overwhelm their opponents.
In order to formulate an answer, we shall have to consider in some detail the religious dispute at
Gyulafehérvár in March, 1568, which was most certainly the most important religious debate of the
period.
This was very a thoroughly prepared meeting, its site determined by ruling Prince John Sigismund
himself, with himself and members of the principal court also participating. Other participants included
the representatives of the Calvinists in Eastern Hungary and of the Saxon Lutherans in Transylvania. All
this clearly shows the intention of the prince to restore the unity disrupted in the autumn of 1565 and end
the religious disputes with a consensus acceptable for all. In the dispute, which lasted from March 8 to 17
this princely intention was reflected mostly in the behaviour of Blandrata. This means that he not only
45

formulated syllogisms that exposed the Trinity, but also attempted to outline a minimal program
acceptable even for Melius and his circle. Thus during the debate of his creed, which he said on the sixth
day, he declared the following about Christ. +We do not say that he was the son of God by predestination
but that he was a real and present son with respect to the father, for whom everything is real and present.
For us, however, he existed hidden and as a secret."142 The solution proposed here, i.e. the Son existing
really in the Old Testament with respect to the Father but not to men, was not acceptable for either party.
Melius and his friends saw merely a trap in this, and Gáspár Békes, an aristocrat on the Antitrinitarians'
side accused the Italian physician of inconsistency. Of course, it was not inconsistency but merely the
quest for a solution acceptable for the opponents. (Yet, this detail has come down in Transylvanian
Unitarian church historiography as Blandrata's wavering, and related to the role the Italian would play in
the conviction of Ferenc Dávid in 1579.)
On the other hand, it can be observed that the Antitrinitarian party was far from representing a
unified view, expressing opinions once in the spirit of Servet, then again in that of the new Christology. A
case in point was the relationship of the two creations and the spiritual nature of the second. Pál Gyulai
said that the Bible never claims that Christ was the creator of the universe, therefore the omnia in John's
gospel cannot refer to both creations, and the creation by Christ is not the shaping of the universe but the
spiritual renewal of the faithful. Blandrata, also in this phase of the debate, was trying to find solutions
that would ensure the transition from the old to the new notion, namely that Christ was creator a
creatore. István Basilius at the same time accepted that Christ had recreated both the heaven and the earth
and Ferenc Dávid used similar expressions: +...Because of sin, for every creature had become corrupted,
even the heaven and the earth, it was necessary that they also get rid of corruption through Christ."143 It
caused further complications that wishing to avoid the charge of making two creators, two gods, Dávid
elsewhere diverged from this attitude, also suggested in Rövid útmutatás, and seemed inclined to accept
the purely spiritualistic character of the second creation. This, however, did not make his situation easier,
indeed, it lead to new fierce clashes as to which of the celestials had to be reconciled with God. A lengthy
debate ensued here on the nature of the angels, on the question whether they had been corrupted or
remained pure (no answer was found, of course) and the Hungarian Antitrinitarian was obliged to admit
that he was not able to support his position with arguments. +We have entirely failed, unlike the angels;
but even the angels are not so perfect that they can stand before God without Christ as head. But we
cannot know why this is so."144
All this shows very well that the Antitrinitarians did not wish to sharpen the points of the
questions under debate since they had come to Gyulafehérvár with the intention to convert Melius and his
friends to a version of a moderate Antitrinitarianism. This can be observed in the events of the last two
days when the first chapter of John's gospel was discussed. The explication put forth by Ferenc Dávid as
the premises of the debate strictly insisted on using such theological considerations only that had been
raised during the earlier discussions. Thus it was perfectly logical that he himself did not bring new
aspects into the debate. This, of course, followed from their tactics of trying to make Melius and his
followers appear as the disrupters of union because it was they who had returned to the use of the
extrabiblical technical terms already denied earlier. Melius and his friends, however, saw by then that
they had made a mistake and they chose the tactics of intensifying the controversies. They wanted to
create situations where the Antitrinitarians could not leave anything unsaid. It was in these terms that
Melius gave his very lengthy answer saying that the apostle John wrote his gospel against Ebion and
Cerinthus, who denied Christ's eternal existence. From the protocols it turns out that Dávid's reply
minutely listed the biblical passages interpreted by Melius and before he could really have got in his
speech, enlivened by verbal altercation, and answered the said argument, Mihály Csáki, at the order of the
Prince, put an end to the religious dispute. So it would seem that the Antitrinitarian protocols of the
debate are telling the truth when it says that they are attaching the adequate answer in an appendix only.
The answer ran in the following way:
+Cerinthus and Ebion, unlike Melius, held that the Man Christ had not been deified before Mary.
46

Ioannes proves this in Chapter 19 of his third book where he says that Cerinthus taught that some eternal
Christ had descended upon Jesus and, consequently, he divides Christ into two. Thus what is quoted from
Hieronymus and others about the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus is false. It is also false that John should
have written his gospel for this purpose, John himself indicating that in Chapter 20 where he says he
wrote his gospel so that we believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God."145
It is at the same time very interesting to compare this passage with the versions of Explicatio
published by Franciscus Iunius, and that published in Transylvania, respectively:
+With regard to whether John +With regard to whether John wrote out of ha-
wrote out of hatred towards Ebion and tred towards Ebion and Cerinthus, this would seem to
Cerinthus, this would seem to be be contrary to truth. First of all, if we believe the most
contrary to truth. For had it been so, John ancient Irenaeus, we find that Cerinthus and Ebion held
would not have kept silent so easily and completely different views from those attributed to
would at least once have named such them these days and by some in earlier centuries.
heretics."146
Describing the teachings of both, he does not mention
that they denied that Christ, i.e. the Word of God, had
existed before Mary, indeed, speaking of Cerinthus, he
seems to be approving of, or rather saying explicitly,
the contrary, as anyone can see if they examine his
writings a little more carefully. Besides, it is unlikely
that John would easily have kept silent about such a
thing, indeed, he would at least have named such
heretics."147
It would seem to be clear from all this that although the whole of the tract cannot be assumed to
have come from Transylvania, the above more detailed argumentative passage must have been written
there. It was probably due to these debates there that the precise positions of Cerinthus and Ebion had to
be stated, and in this sense the work is not entirely independent of the events at Gyulafehérvár.
Thus, on the strength of the arguments listed before it would seem safe to propose that Dávid and
his associates had known Explicatio prior to the dispute at Gyulafehérvár, and the reason they did not use
it at the religious dispute was that they wanted to avoid increasing the tension between Trinitarians and
Antitrinitarians and, on the other hand, there was no time for by the time they really needed it. Thus the
presence of the tract in manuscript prior to the Gyulafehérvár religious dispute can be shown, but it does
not help determine the time of the printing. Looking at it strictly from the developments in Transylvania,
it would be logical to assume that the work was printed in April and May, 1568. This date would,
moreover, fit the data of Rotondo as well. It would, nevertheless, be difficult to harmonize with the
information from Szczucki since if Lasicki's refusal was written in April 1568, then the Latin work
preceding that of Grzegorz Pawel should have been published much earlier, at the end of 1567 or very
early in 1568. It is of course possible that Lasicki was arguing not with the work in print but with one
circulated in manuscript, indeed, he was not referring definitely to Wyklad na pirwsza kapitule since the
view he took exception to had been expounded in other works by Grzegorz Pawel as well.
Thus, although the precise date of publication is impossible to determine, our observations certainly
invalidate Marchetti's argument that Explicatio was omitted from De falsa et vera because it found
its way to Transylvania too late, in August 1568. With this explanation discarded, we must now ask the
question: why was the sketchier, less developed text of Brevis explicatio adopted by the editors of De
falsa et vera in their publication instead of the more developed text of Explicatio, which was also richer in
theoretical reflections? This question renders the above mentioned qualities of the treatise even more
47

important, and directs attention to a number of other details. As it has been pointed out, the treatise does
not show either the date or the place of the publication and does not say who the author is. The
Transylvanian Antitrinitarians had published a number of works without giving the names of their
authors, but if these works expressed views that were meant to be official and accepted by most of the
congregations, the following formula was invariably used: +ministri et seniores ecclesiarum
consentientium" [the ministers and elders of the consenting churches]. Since in this case this formula is
missing, the publishers of the text must have distinguished it from the publications reflecting the official
standpoint. So the circumstances of the publication suggest that the leaders of the Transylvanian
Antitrinitarians related ambiguously to this work. They used its store of arguments but would not elevate
the whole of what it had to say to official status.
It would seem expedient, therefore, to scrutinize in some detail to what extent the most characteristic
elements of Explicatio, deemed most important also with respect to intellectual history, are present
in the works that appeared until the beginning of the 1570s. In this respect it is obviously the strong anti-
Platonism, to be further developed by Sommer later in the 1570s, that needs emphasis here. The following
are the expressions of anti-Platonism we have been able to collect from works published up to the early
1570s:
+We trust all pious and righteous men to judge how frivolous and Platonic it is to philosophize in
religious matters on the basis of syllables and letters."148
+You should try... to distinguish the knowledge of the prophets and the apostles from that of Plato
and Trismegistus, from whom most of the scholastics took their own knowledge."149
+But let us be satisfied for our salvation with the announced clear word of God and leave alone
the speculations of Plato and Trismegistus, who are wailing in their opinions."150
This is really not much, and the argumentation noted above is incomparably more frequent in the
output of the times. This does not hold one or another current in philosophy responsible for the
development of the Trinitarian dogma, but blames its opponents instead for trying to justify their fallacies
with the writings of the +Greek sages". Therefore, what we have called the synthesis of the new
Christology and Servet cleansed of Platonism was a tendency still going strong at the end of the sixties.
We should remember that it was long after the religious dispute of Gyulafehérvár and Explicatio had
gained prominence that De regno Christi, culled from Restitutio Christianismi, was published in 1569. Of
course, the effort to reinterpret is doubtlessly present in that work as well. Points 17, 20, 23, and 26 on the
table of the differences and correspondences (Appendix II) clearly show that they tried to include
elements of the new Christology in that publication. There are, however, a number of problematical
places; the passage beginning Eadem deinceps ratione... for example, translated with some changes into
Rövid útmutatás, was left unchanged here. Of course, these details should not be overestimated in a work
that borrows whole chapters from Servet's work. Neither should we ignore them, though, since -- as we
have seen -- even before editing De regno Christi they had been concerned with Christiani restitutio for a
long time, which also meant translating significant parts into Hungarian. Dávid's book of sermons, using
Servet's texts from Rövid útmutatás along with the explications of the two Sozzinis, also relies on it to a
great extent.
All this, however, is not marked by any polarized Platonism; it might be said with Rotondo151 that
Platonism is dissolved in a more general opposition to philosophy. Let us add for the sake of precision
that such an interpretation was by no means alien to the spirit of Lelio Sozzini's treatise either since in the
name of biblical simplicity he reproaches those who study Greek philosophy day and night. It would be
more to the point to say that Ferenc Dávid amplifies, and gives a dominant role to, this tendency of the
48

work.
At the same time, it is clearly discernible that Ferenc Dávid relies more and more on Fausto
Sozzini's Explicatio in the works written between 1569 and 1571, Brevis explicatio being pushed, as it
were, into the background. This is particularly marked in his book of sermons published in 1569 and in
his work entitled Az egy a magától való felséges Istenral.
The prologue of the Gospel according to John is treated in a whole series of sermons (24 through
30), and the text, although not lacking in didactic digressions, clearly follows the more recent explication.
This is manifested in the identical segmentation of the biblical text under discussion -- with a few
passages not treated thoroughly in Brevis explicatio also discussed in detail -- and in the actual details as
well. Thus, like his example, he claims that Mark has the same beginning as John (that of the preaching of
the Gospel), and for him it is also the angel appearing to Mary in Luke that explains what the Gospels are
about (the Man Christ, naturally). Indeed, in many places Dávid is virtually translating the Latin text.
Thus, while showing that the word is none other than the Man Jesus Christ through whom God speaks, he
refers to John the Baptist also called the crying voice and goes on with a nearly literal translation:
+Aaron was similarly given by the Lord to Moses for a mouth. Now do we say that it pertains to
Aaron's substance or nature? What could be more absurd than that?"152
+God said unto Moses about Aaron: Now I give him to thee for a mouth. Who would be such a
fool as to explain these words either for his nature or his substance?"153
Although the work Az egy a magától való... sometimes uses arguments that occur only in Lelio
Sozzini, the line of reasoning is closely connected with Fausto Sozzini's Explicatio. His arrangement of
the biblical texts is the same apart from a few differences like a small number of omissions and
rearrangements. Thus the explication of the passages in ipso erat vita [in him was life], et vita erat lux
hominum [and the life was the light of men], and et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non
comprehenderunt [and the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not] is missing.
Instead in a way reminiscent of Rövid útmutatás he writes about the mixing up of the two kinds of
testaments, about the two kinds of life and the difference between darkness and light. Nor does he treat
the passage beginning Non erat ille lux... [He was not that light...], but in the subsequent unit he gives the
consideration from the original, which says that he was not light because many regarded John the Baptist
as the Messiah. Later he discusses briefly some verses that received separate passages in Explicatio, and
concludes the explication in the strict sense by shedding light on verbo caro factum est. Merely describing
the other biblical passages, he does not interpret unigenitus either. All these changes notwithstanding, this
explication quite perceptibly provides the spine of the text, which the polemical digressions or the
loquacity that goes with frequent repetitions do not hide.
The main tendency here is the endeavour to be easily understood, to adjust to the standards of the
simple faithful, a phenomenon observed already in the case of Rövid útmutatás. Sometimes this also gives
way to individual examples, for instance when showing that omnia refers to Christ's spiritual kingdom
only: +When someone is writing a chronicle on the Hungarians or the Saxons, it is not necessary to say
that I am not writing it about the Italians because everybody will understand that if he is writing about the
Hungarians, he is not writing about the Italians."154
This text, however, surrendered itself less easily than the earlier one, and the paraphraser dropped
from it precisely what was most valuable in it: its rationalistic argumentation, first of all. Dávid does not
accept the doctrines of his opponents because they explain the Scripture not +according to its true
course", but Explicatio stresses the absurd and irrational side of this view. The rhetorical arguments also
49

lose their +learned", professional character. According to the Latin version, the Evangelist consciously
imitates Moses by using in principio, while in the Hungarian +just as Moses explains in order the beginning
of the Old Testament and of creation, so John does the beginning of the New
Testament..."155 According to the Latin, verbum can be considered a metaphor and a metonymy, while the
Hungarian merely circumscribes that the verb should be understood as Jesus Christ the man. The Latin
employs an erudite explication to show that erchomenon fits both the light and the man and that this is
why Jesus could claim that he was lux mundi. The Hungarian, on the other hand, only states that the Man
Christ is the light of the world and then, instead of expert explication, goes on to denounce the meanness
of the Antichrist.
At the same time, with some of the crucial details, the polyphony perceived in the earlier works of
Dávid does survive. Such, for instance, is the interpretation of the term filius unigenitus. As it is
commonly known, Fausto Sozzini uses a completely new solution in this case as well. Filius unigenitus
is, of course, not first born son for him either, nor does, however, the attribute unigenitus relate merely to
His miraculous birth or dignity, but is used rather with the meaning unice dilectus [especially beloved].
He thinks this is proved by a series of biblical examples: Ishmael was elder than Isaac among the sons of
Abraham, yet the latter is unigenitus; although Solomon was not the eldest among his siblings, he was
entitled to that epithet.
Albeit without an explanation supported by the Greek and Hebrew forms, and relying entirely on
the analogous biblical places, Ferenc Dávid's 30th sermon says that the expression means +particularly
beloved" son. Even when allowing that the phrase might also refer to the miraculous birth and dignity of
Christ, he is following the spirit of Fausto Sozzini, who left ample room for a number of various views.
Another sermon at the same time formulated the position containing Servetian reminiscences that we
have met in Rövid útmutatás:
+Primogenitus omnis creaturae, first born of all created beings, consider what the Scripture wants
to explain in it, I have said before thus it goes in Part 24 of Book Three of the Book of Solomon on
wisdom: Primogenita sum ante omnes Creaturas, Why speaks the Scripture thus? Because the uncreated
wisdom bears the secrets and the image of the future Christ, which for his majesty is called first born
among the created beings."156
Before drawing conclusions, a detail must be mentioned, where Dávid elaborates an idea in the
Latin text in an interesting way. Fausto Sozzini says that one reason why the clause et verbum caro
factum est cannot be interpreted as the incarnation of the Christ existing from eternity is that it does not fit
into the chronological order followed up to that point by the prologue: +For what could be more absurd
than to say that the Evangelist first said that the verb was in the world, had come to his own, and gave
such a power to those who believed in him that they could become the sons of god, and after all this to
say that the verb was made flesh? as if the verb had come to his own before his birth, and had been in the
world first and became flesh only after that."157 Dávid further enriches this argument in the introduction
and conclusion of the treatise disguised as objection. The essence of his reasoning is that the prologue of
John's Gospel gives the +sum" of the main text and follows a chronology closely sticking to that:
describing the task of the Man Jesus Christ (the verb teaching men), telling that it gave light and life,
made his own kingdom and, although many despised it, acquired followers. Then it relates how it was
made flesh, that is to say, humble, miserable, poor, and was cast to curse, i.e. died on the cross. Then its
glory could be seen, which, being full of grace and justice, can only be the glorification after the
resurrection.
This chain of thoughts is complemented with a denouncement of the method that +making the
head into foot" reverses the right relationship between the Synoptics and John's Gospel. He has no doubt
that among the Gospels John's was chronologically the last, and is regarded as first +according to
meaning" by his opponents only so that thereby they could prove that Christ has been born from eternity.
50

(Dávid is less original in comparing the Gospels. Making use of the Latin, he explains that while Matthew
and Luke relate the conception and birth of Christ as well, Mark and John begin by describing his position
and knowledge, although the former mentions also his baptism and temptation.)
It is all the more exciting, however, that the concluding part extends the previous chronological
considerations over the entire New Testament: +Finally, see the beginning of the New Testament, where
it begins Mt.1 about the Jesus of Nazareth, the son of David. And the whole New Testament ending
Rev.22, so that it sought no Jesus other than this as there is no other."158 What Dávid is saying here is that
the same ordering principle can be seen at work both in the smaller textual unit he has been explaining
(the prologue of John's Gospel) and in the individual Gospels as well as in the whole of the New
Testament that builds these texts into one unit.
Though this is a very interesting elaboration of an idea by Fausto Sozzini, our survey of the application
of Explicatio should point out that it is precisely the intellectual historically most important elements
that lose their edge during the application. We have seen that, in order to show among others the
permanency of their views, they used the set of arguments in Explicatio in a way that did not reveal its
opposition to earlier Antitrinitarian positions. That is why, it would seem, this text, despite the important
role it played in the development of Antitrinitarianism, was never incorporated in De falsa et vera, and
not because Dávid and his associates, content with merely using the arguments it included, did not wish to
make its contents the official position of the churches in Transylvania and in Poland. It is, on the other
hand, unquestionable that the views of Fausto Sozzini were getting more and more into the foreground by
the late sixties and early seventies. We have seen, however, that even that did not cause the earlier great
achievements, the oeuvre of Servet among them, to lose their actuality for the Transylvanians.
The above will perhaps have shown that it is far from us to speak, with István Borbély,159 of the
autochthonous character of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, or to stress unilaterally the definitive role of
Servet. We believe, however, that a dismissal of the Spanish heretic, or ignoring the characteristics of the
reception in various fields would lead to a similarly extreme position. Looking for these, we should, on
the one hand, definitely mention the underdeveloped state of the Christology of Transylvanian
Antitrinitarianism, noted very precisely by Borbély. There is, of course, much more than that, behind
marrying Servet and the Sozzinis: what one can perceive there is a constant effort to arrive at a
Antitrinitarian consensus and trying to avoid absolutizing the differences between the various views on
the basis of the minimal common denominator of rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity and denying the
preexistence of Christ.
A comparison with Polish Antitrinitarianism can help emphasize the other features of
Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism. Górski160 has observed characteristics not unlike Dávid's paraphrase in
the Explicatio primi capitis Joannis, translated into Polish by Grzegorz Pawel in 1568, which contains
digressions motivated by the wish to be easy to understand, forceful (harsher than Dávid's) denunciations
of the servants of the Antichrist, a leaching of the rationalistic tendency of the original, and the
overwhelming dominance of biblical argumentation.
It would seem, however, that all these unquestionably similar features are put into a rather
different light by a letter161 that Dávid wrote to Palaeologus on November 29, 1570, i.e. nearly simultaneously
with his printed polemic works. The detailed analysis of this document by Antal Pirnát162 has
very convincingly argued for the author's consciousness of his calling. It should not be amiss, however, to
point out the special importance of some of its passages. First of all, that although Dávid is deeply
convinced of the biblical nature of his convictions, he also sees -- and dramatically experiences -- that this
cannot be conformed to every passage in the Scriptures: +I can see that our doctrine is true and has a
strong foundation in God's word, but I cannot refute all the arguments of the opponents by it."163 He goes
on to reveal the logical contradictions burdening his views: +For if Christ is god because of the Father's
divinity dwelling in him, I cannot see why the Son is not one god with the Father, and if he is one, then
51

why he is not perpetual and infinite -- I say -- with respect to divinity. And if we say that this man is god,
then how is it that he does not become a created, a made, indeed, a brand new god?"164
All this will make it very clear that if he easily dismissed the charge often brought up against him
on religious disputes, namely that his position would lead to believing in two Gods, it was appearance
only. Indeed, both this charge and the scriptural evidence of his opponents caused him a serious dilemma.
In this letter he takes courage to confess that he would like only the analogy of the Scripture to
substantiate his views. The apparent self-confidence that ironized over his opponents in religious disputes
and in printed works is nowhere in sight here. And, of course, it is also a far cry from Grzegorz Pawel's
confidently unanimous Weltanschauung, completely free from inner doubts.
The whole of the present work will hopefully contribute to the thorough, many sided examination
that this difference between the leaders of the Polish and Hungarian Antitrinitarians is in need of. One
aspect, however, is referred to by Dávid himself, when he speaks about struggling with his opponents. By
the end of the 1560s, the tendency of sectarian separatism was becoming stronger and stronger among the
Polish Antitrinitarians. Their debates were becoming increasingly internal, and although we have
evidence from as late as 1569 for an attempt to compromise between the ecclesia maior and the ecclesia
minor, there is no doubt that the will and the need to patch up some kind of agreement with the Calvinists
in the territories under the control of Prince John Sigismund was much more forceful. These were the
efforts at union demanded and supported by the prince, which, of course, the ruler envisaged as Melius
and his followers bowing before the truth dictated by the +good Scripture". This hope is palpably present
at the most important religious disputes at Gyulafehérvár in 1568 and at Várad in 1569, but later as well.
It would seem this also has something to do with the fact that Dávid and his followers did not, because
they could not afford to, lock themselves up into the tower of their unshakeable views or dismiss the
sinful world, but endeavoured to win it over to their side.
This need, this obligation can also explain why Dávid did not follow the Explicatio dogmatically,
influenced not only by the letter but by the spirit of the treatise. He often expressed his thanks ironically
to his opponents for forcing him by their attacks to get a better knowledge of the truth, but I believe it was
really these attacks that revealed for him the contradictions that burdened the work of Fausto Sozzini as
well. That is how Dávid, who could not stress enough the +obscurity of our mind", voiced and applied to
the source itself the need for rationalism that it radiated.
Ferenc Dávid would still print his works in the following year against +the adventurous masters of
the pope", but it is very probably this letter that contains his real thoughts. And if the well-known fact that
despite the initial protestations the doctrines of Palaeologus found a number of followers, at least on a
certain level, in Transylvania in the 1570s while most of the Polish brethren refused them, needs
explanation, this is certainly one factor to be taken into consideration. The more closed, more dogmatic
reception of the earlier Christological ideas with the Poles and the forced openness of the same reception
by Dávid surely played some role in the fact that Palaeologus was much better listened to in Transylvania.
52

1. Friedrich TRECHSEL: Die protestantischen Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socin. I--II.
Heidelberg 1839--1844. -- Elek JAKAB: Dávid Ferenc emléke [The memory of F. D.]. Bp. 1879.
-- József POKOLY: Az unitarizmus Magyarországon [Unitarianism in Hungary]. In: ProtSz X.
1899. 28--44, 150--167, 228--246, 285--304, 375--392. -- IDEM: Az erdélyi református egyház
története [The history of the Calvinist Church in Transylvania]. I. Bp. 1904. 30--165. -- István
BORBÉLY: Unitárius polemikusok Magyarországon a XVI. században [Unitarian polemists in
Hungary in the 16th century]. Kolozsvár 1909 -- IDEM: A mai unitárius hitelvek kialakulásának
története [The history of the development of modern Unitarian articles of faith]. Cluj-Kolozsvár
1925. -- IDEM: Melyik évben kezdadött az unitárizmus Erdélyben? [In which year did
Unitarianism begin in Transylvania?] In: ErdMúz XXXVI. 1931. 224--239. -- Stanislaus von
DUNIN-BORKOWSKI: Quellenstudien zur Vorgeschichte der Unitarier des 16. Jahrhunderts.
In: 75. Jahre Stella Matutina. Festschrift I. Feldkirch 1931. 91--139. -- IDEM: Untersuchungen
zum Schrifttum der Unitarier vor Faustus Socini. In: 75. Jahre Stella Matutina. Festschrift II.
Feldkirch 1931. 103--147. -- IDEM: Die Gruppierung der Antitrinitarier des 16. Jahrhunderts. In:
Scholastik VIII. 1932. 481--523. -- Imre RÉVÉSZ: Magyar református egyháztörténet
[Hungarian Calvinist Church history]. Bp. I. 1938. 43--150. -- István BORBÉLY: A magyar
unitárius egyház hitelvei a XVI. században [The articles of faith of the Hungarian Unitarian
church in the 16th century]. Kolozsvár 1944. -- Earl Morse WILBUR: A History of Unitarianism
in Transylvania, England and America. Cambridge 1952. 16--180. -- George Hunston
WILLIAMS: The Radical Reformation. Philadelphia 1962. 708--725. -- Róbert DcN:
Humanizmus, reformáció, antitrinitarizmus és a héber nyelv Magyarországon [Humanism,
Reformation, Unitarianism, and the Hebrew language in Hungary]. Bp. 1973. 103--114. -- Jena
ZOVcNYI: A magyarországi protestantizmus 1565-tal 1600-ig [Protestantism in Hungary from
1565 to 1600]. Bp. 1977. 11--56. -- Antal PIRNcT: A kelet-közép-európai antitrinitarizmus
fejladésének vázlata az 1570-es évek elejéig [A draft of the development of Unitarianism in
Central Eastern Europe until the early 1570s], in: Irodalom és ideológia a 16--17. században
[Literature and ideology in the 16th and 17th centuries], red: Béla VARJAS, Budapest 1987. 9--
59. -- For excellent summaries on George Blandrata, the central figure of Eastern Central
European Unitarianism, see ROTONDL'S entries in: DBI T. 10. (1968) 257--264. és TRE T. 5.
(1980) 777--781.
2. Cf: Bibliotheca Dissidentium T. XII. 35--50. (János HELTAI)
3. Published: S. Hosii Epistolae, ed. Alojzy SZORC T. V. Olsztyn 1976. 565--566.
4. Lech SZCZUCKI: Polish and Transylvanian... 232.
5. Géza KATHONA: [The deformation of the Heidelberg catechism in the battles against
Unitarianism]. In: Studia et Acta Ecclesiastica. I. Bp. 1965. 125. -- PIRNcT: A kelet-középeurópai
36., where he particularly emphasizes the initiative of Alciati. For his biography with
more literature, see: DBI T. 2. (1960) 68--69. (D. SELLA)
6. Published: Elek JAKAB: Kolozsvár története [A history of Kolozsvár] II. Budapest
1888. 178.
7. Cf: Bibliotheca Dissidentium XII. 127--158. (András SZABL)
8. Géza KATHONA: A heidelbergi káté [The Heidelberg catechism]. 93--125. -- IDEM:
Dávid Ferenc 1566. évi tételei [The theses of F. D. in 1566], in: TheolSz IX. 1966. 16--23.
9. Described in RMNY 215.
53

10. Antal PIRNcT: L'Italia e gli antitrinitarii transilvani. In: Venezia e Ungheria nel
Rinascimento. ed Vittore BRANCA. Firenze 1973. 429--430.
11. +Mitto ad te libellum eruditi pastoris, qui tametsi haereat et ad rem non faciat, cuperet scire
veritatem et invulgare partum suum, quare ego id fieri meo suffragio non patior, eo quod non
explicet vel attingat scopum. Alii sunt plurimi accincti, qui nihil aliud a vobis expectant quam
sinceram aliquam et publicam fidei in causa Triadis confessionem et ut de istis praesertim
capitibus vestram sententiam ingenue proferatis, quo uniri in Domino possint. Rogant itaque
omnes, ut de subscriptis capitibus iudicium facietis idque postea publicis litteris significetis.
Primum. An Petri Lombardi, Scoti, Thomae et papae de Trinitate doctrina illa reicienda sit
et nullam aliam Triadem praedicandam, quam quae visa fuit auditaque in Iordane.
Secundum. An omissis aliis omnibus symbolis et quattuor conciliis, sufficiat omnibus piis
modestisque Christianis illud unicum, quod apostolorum vocatur, (et an vos faciatis).
Tertium. Utrum unus noster Deus sit Pater Christi et non unica essentia, in qua resident
tres personae. Affirmativam declaretis liberius et negativam reicite aut simpliciter aut cum
moderatione.
Quartum. An Deus in Scripturis, cum indefinite profertur, essentiam illam et tres simul
personas designet, an vero Patrem vel Filium distincte.
Quintum. An Christus, secundum quod Deus est, sit Deus natura vel communicatione: an scilicet
sit Deus proprie de Deo an Deus a se ipso.
Sextum. Petunt declarationem, quomodo Christus Deus sit secundum Scripturas.
Septimum. An Sermo ille, qui erat in principio apud Deum, et Deus Filius existens et
genitus ab aeterno esse censetur an magis Filius in praedestinatione secundum Scripturas. Quodsi
realiter tunc existens dici debeat, an duo filii constituantur. Deinde ubi manifeste id docuerit
Scriptura, petunt, et locos Scripturae apertos, non humano ingenio detortos.
Haec, quam celerrime poteris, communicato cum fratribus consilio ad me mittes vel ad
fratres. Nam ego synodum generalem, quam in hunc usum instituerant, prorogavi. Noli, quaeso,
istis fratribus deesse. Nunc est tempus concordandi et in unum conveniendi. Age ergo diligenter et
scripta omnia tua cum aliquot turribus Babellicis mittito et ad d. Franciscum Davidis, scribito.
Servetum tibi concederem libenter, sed abest d. Prosper, qui omnes meos libros possidet." The
letter was first published in Theodor WOTSCHKE: Der Briefwechsel der Schweizer mit den
Polen. In: ARG Ergänzungsband III. Leipzig 1908. 263--268. The correct date and the corrected
text are from the new edition: Akta synodów róznowierczych w Polsce. II. (1560--1570). ed Maria
SIPAYLLO. Warszawa 1972. 357--358.
12. The debate started with a book review by Antal PIRNcT (in: ItK LXXI. 1967. 486--
492.). The articles of the debate included: Géza KATHONA: Problémák Dávid Ferenc
antitrinitárius tevékenységének kezdeti szakaszában [Problems in the initial period of F.D.'s
Unitarian activities], in: ItK LXXIII. 1969. 697--702. -- Antal PIRNcT: Megjegyzések Melius és
az erdélyi antitrinitáriusok közötti küzdelem történetének néhány kérdéséhez [Notes to the history
of the struggle between Melius and the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians], in ItK LXXIV. 1970. 61--
62.
13. Scriptum Francisci Davidis Servetici. Anno Domini 1566. ex ejusdem autographo
transcriptum. Published: in: Friedrich Adolph LAMPE. Paulus Debreczinus EMBER: Historia
ecclesiae reformatae in Hungaria et Transylvania. Utrecht. 1728. 152--158.
54

14. Described in RMNY 228.
15. Described in RMNY 229.
16. Described in RMNY 226.
17. Described in RMNY 231.
18. Described in RMNY 232. sz. Facsimile edition: Kolozsvár 1910. Text published ibid.
with notes by Márton PcLFI (Quotations below are from this edition.)
19. Described in RMNY 233. sz. Modern edition edited by Katalin NÉMETH S. Budapest
1984. (Quotations below are from this edition.)
20. +Deinde credimus et in Unum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, per quem omnia
1.Cor.8. Filium altissimi Luc.1. Quem abumbrante ipsius virtute concepit de Spiritu sancto in
utero virginis Luc. 2. Matt. 1. in quo novissimis temporibus Deus ille se manifestavit. Hebr.1.
Hunc Filium Dei, nec immortalem, vel supra omnia, vel ex quo omnia Deum fuisse nunquam
asserimus, ne a seipso Deum, sed magis credimus eundem fuisse, esseque Deum de Deo vero,
Sapientem de Sapiente, Creatorem de Creatore, et Immortalem de Immortali illo a nemine
dependente aeterno Patre, cui Filius iste totus, et non secundum hanc, vel illam naturam post
consummationem seculi subiciendus erit 1.Cor.15. et cui minorem se confessus idem Filius est,
Joann.14. Aequalem vero ideo esse, dicique credimus, quia, suam illi Divinitatem cum omni
plenitudine Pater communicavit, deditque omnem potestatem in coelo et in terra: Eundemque ab
Angelis, et hominibus adorari voluerit, Matt.28. Phil. 2. Hebr.1. Confitemur ergo Jesum Christum
Filium illum unicum, de quo bis Pater de coelis testificatus est Matt.3. 17. Luc.3. Et quem olim ex
semine mulieris Adamo promisit Gen.1. Deinde patriarchis ex lumbis Abrahae Gen.12.18.23.26.
Item Act. Eccl. 44. Davidi vero ex suo semine, de quo solo unico omnes Prophetae vaticinati sunt.
Et quem Apostoli tandem virum Act. 2 et hominem 1.Timo 2. postremum Adam 1Cor. 15. vocant.
... Hunc igitur Christum visibilem dicimus esse illud verbum caro, quod unigenitum a Patre
vocavit Joan. 1. praeter quem alius non est Esa. 45. unicum Mediatorem 1Tim. 2. Iudicam
vivorum et mortuorum. 2. Tim. 4. unicum ecclesiae caput. Ephes. 5. Qui est Deus benedictus in
secula. Rom. 9. quem et adoramus et osculamur et colimus, et in quem perpetuo sperabimus,
iuxta Altissimi aeternum decretum. Fatemur ergo cum Paulo 1Cor. 2. nos nihil aliud scire praeter
Iseum Christum et hunc crucifixum." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii A3v--A4r.
21. +Postea interpretatur apostolorum dicta pro cerebri libidine, Deus, inquit, manifestatus
est in carne, id est, Logos incarnatus est et carnem assumpsit. Attende qua sincere id faciat, et ubi
incarnationis vocabulum inveniet apud apostolos." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii Lr.
22. +Quod si quis etiam verbum factum carnem interpretur, non pro unione illa duorum in
unum, nec pro conversione unius in alterum, sed pro mutatione status conditionis summae
potentiae Christo datae, non absurde, ut puto, faceret, ut respondeat loco illi Philippensium 2. et
Esaiae 53., de forma Dei et servi, tum illi 2. Corintiorum 8: Quod cum esset dives, factus sit
pauper propter nos." The text of Brevis explicatio is quoted from the facsimile edition in
Bibliotheca Unitariorum (Budapest 1988. 321.). I also refer to the pagination of the critical
edition. Cf. Lelio Sozzini: Opere. Edizione critica a cura di Antoni ROTONDL, Firenze 1984.
125.
23. +Non secunda persona, seu Filius aeternus factus est caro, sed verbum homo Jezus
Christus, olim promissus, factus est caro, Johan. 1. Apoc. 10. 13. Factus est caro, hoc est, vilis,
abiectus et mortalis, factus est obediens Patri usque ad mortem Phil. 2. 2Cor. 8. Qui cum esset
55

dives, factus est pauper. Et quid carnis nomine lingua Hebraea notet manifestum est es Psal. 87.
Esa. 40. Jere. 16." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii B3r.
24. +Homo Jezus Christus eiusdem naturae est cum Patre, quia conceptus est de Spiritu
suo sancto, sed non eandem ratione: Pater enim a seipso Deus est, et Filius suum esse a Patre
habet. Joann. 7." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii B3r
25. +Integram hunc locorum citatorum refutationem non instituimus, peculiari enim libello
locorum explicationem tractare decrevimus, verum nunc in iis testimoniis haec potissimum
considerari possumus." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii D4v
26. In addition to those mentioned in note 4 of the Introduction, the following works are of
particular importance: -- Waclaw URBAN: Z dziejów wloskiej emigracji na Morawach. In: ORP
XI. 1966. 49--52. -- Antonio ROTONDO: Calvino e gli antitrinitari italiani. In: A. R.: Studi e
ricerche 57--86. -- IDEM: Attegiamenti della vita morale italiana del Cinquecento. La pratica
nicodemica. In: RSI LXXIX. 1967 991--1030. -- Domenico CACCAMO: Eretici italiani in
Moravia, Polonia, Transilvania (1558--1611) Studi e documenti. Firenze--Chicago 1970. --
Valerio MARCHETTI: Ricostruzione delle tesi antitrinitarie de Niccolo Paruta. In: Movimenti
ereticali in Italia e in Polonia nei secoli XVI--XVII. Firenze 1974. 211--268. -- IDEM: Gruppi
ereticali senesi del Cinquecento. Firenze 1975. -- Manfred E. WELTI: Kleine Geschichte der
italienischen Reformation, Gütersloh 1985. (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte
193.)
27. Described in RMNY 254.
28. On its significance, see William TOTH: Trinitarianism versus Antitrinitarianism in the
Hungarian Reformation, in: Church History, XIII. 1944. 255--268. -- József FERENCZ: Az elsa
nemzetközi unitárius kiadvány [The first international Unitarian publication]. In: Dávid Ferenc
1579--1979 [Ferenc Dávid 1579-1979]. Kolozsvár--Napoca 1979. 45--51.
29. De falsa et vera unius Dei ... cognitione libri duo (Albae Juliae) 1568. Introduced by
Antal Pirnát. Budapest 1968. (Bibliotheca Unitariorum II.) In the references to this work below
the modern pagination of the facsimile edition will also be given.
30. KATHONA: Problémák 699--702. In Polish: Okolicznosci ogloszenia +De falsa et
vera unius Dei... cognitione". In: ORP XVII. 1971. 183--188.
31. Described in RMNY 230. On the author, see Bibliotheca Dissidentium XII. 105--126.
(János HERNER)
32. Described in RMNY 252.
33. +Christus verus conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria virgine, annis ab hinc
postquam dictum est, hodie nobis natus est servator Christus in Bethlen. 1568 Lucae 2." Cf. Lk
2:11. De falsa et vera Ff 2v., 344.
34. At the same time, we can see that the literature on the subject generally accepts the
view that De falsa et vera was published in 1568. Thus Waclaw Urban's return to 1567 as the year
of publication seems somewhat anachronistic. (cf: ORP XXXV. 1990. 188--189.)
35. Described in RMNY 245.
56

36. Barna NAGY: Méliusz Péter movei (P. M. and his work) In: Studia et Acta
Ecclesiastica. II. Budapest 1967. 244--246.
XL.
37. Described in RMNY 250.
38. Introductory essay to the facsimile edition of De falsa et vera. XX--XXI. and XXXIX--
39. Incidentally, this solution might be applicable in the case of Aequipollentes ex
scriptura phrases (Equipollent phrases from the Scriptures) (described in RMNY 244. sz.) as
well. Here, however, there is no clue as to the exact time of publication. It is worth, at the same
time, to quote Zsigmond JAKL: A Hoffhalterek váradi és gyulafehérvári nyomdája. [The
printing-house of the Hoffhalters at Várad and Gyulafehérvár]. In: Moveladéstörténeti
tanulmányok (Studies on the history of civilization) eds. Elek CSETRI, Zsigmond JAKL, Sándor
TONK Bukarest 1979. 62. +But we have placed the publication of Blandrata's two short Latin
pieces (RMNY 244--245) to the end of the year in order to avoid an erroneous chronology. It is
perfectly possible that both were printed right after the protocols of the Gyulafehérvár debate, that
is still in the spring." Jakó does not mention Barna Nagy's consideration.
40. Described in RMNY 247.
41. Described in RMNY 237.
42. Konrad GLRSKI: Grzegorz Pawel z Brzezin. Monografja z dziejów poslkiej literatury
arjanskiej XVI. wieku. Kraków 1929. 220--241.
43. Rövid magyarázat 18.
44. +Ostendit vero passim Origenes, quid sit de uno Deo sentiendum, et unico eius filio,
tametsi ipsius volumina corruptelis et rasuris scateant, cuius etiam dogmata postea totus ferme
Papatus damnavit (uti apud Thomam Aquinatem videre poteris), qui hominem non veretur
appelare Arianae sectae authorem." De falsa et vera Dr-v., 33--34.
45. Rövid magyarázat 22.
46. Rövid magyarázat 28.
47. Rövid magyarázat 17.
48. Rövid magyarázat 28.
49. Introductory essay to the facsimile edition of De falsa et vera. LXVII--LXXIV.
50. In the review of the facsimile edition of De falsa et vera. In Polish: ORP XXXIV.
218--225. In English: APH 65. 1992. 129--139.
51. Rövid magyarázat 32.
52. +Quae si quis videre velit, investiget locos infrascriptos de ruina Babylonis, et de
ecclesia Dei restauratione, Inter cetera conferat Ieremiae 51. caput cum Apoc. 18., ubi multa
videbit paria..." De falsa et vera BBv., 130.
57

53. +Quod autem mox non exerantur solida illa restitutionis indicia, mirari desinito,
oportet enim adhuc modicum varios Antichristos in reformatis ecclesiis regnare, qui tamen Dei
verbo destituti, una cum suis partibus, uti Capito et Cellarius praedixerunt, perituri sunt." De falsa
et vera BB2r., 131.
54. Preface to the facsimile edition of De falsa et vera, LIX.
55. +Secutus est has partes Gregorius Paulus cum suis, qui nunc quoque quotidie nova
oracula cudit, et nescio quod aureum seculum, quod conversis ad Christum Judaeis et Turcis, mille
annos in terris foeliciter degamus, ad biennium ab hinc incohandum esse vaticinatur." Josias
SIMLER: De aeterno dei filio domino et servatore nostro Iesu Christo et di spiritu sancto,
adversus veteres et novos antitrinitarios, id est Arianos, tritheistas, Samosatenianos et
pneumatomachos, libri quatuor. Tiguri 1568. I5r.
56. In the review of the facsimile edition of De falsa et vera. In Polish: ORP XXXIV. 221.
In English: APH 65. 1992. 134.
57. +Regnabant olim in ecclesia missarum nundinationes, purgatorii ignes, indulgentiarum
mercatus, patronorum auxilia infinita et artes variae regni coelorum precio comparandi. Haec a
Luthero profligata nemo non novit. Zuinglius missarum panopliam sustulit atque evertit. Ante
horum tempora quis non in omnibus, quae enumeravimus, animo placidissimo conquiescebat?
Non de vulgo tantum indoctorum loquor, sed et de hominibus summa doctrina praeditis. Quis,
inquam eorum non spem salutis in missis, indulgentiis, patronorum invocationibus et id genus aliis
reponebat? Verumtamen omnia illa, quamtumvis altis radicibus in animis hominum fixa
manebant, tamen ad verbi divini lucem inania reperta sunt, ad eloquiorum Dei vim coruscam
fracta sunt et funditus corruerunt. Quid igitur mirum, si et axiomata haec tum de triade tum de
Christi natura duplici, vana tandem conspiciantur, stultitiae et erroris plena?" Andreae FRICII
MODREVII Opera omnia V. ed Casimirius KUMANIECKI, Varsoviae 1960. 216.
58. The association of De falsa et vera to this tradition and especially to Carion has been
emphasized by Delio CANTIMORI: Tradizione ecclesiastica e storia cristiana nel pensiero degli
eretici italiani del Cinquecento. In: D. C.: Umanesimo e religione nel Rinascimento. Torino 1975.
228--231.
59. Antonio ROTONDO: Sulla diffusione clandestina delle dottrine di Lelio Sozzini
1560--1568 (Risposta a Jerome Friedman). In: Studi e ricerche 110.
60. The most recent edition of the preface: Correspondance Théodore de Beze. eds.
Hippolyte AUBERT, Henri MEYLAN, Alian DUFOUR, Claire CHIMELLI et Mario
TURCHETTI. VIII. (1567), Geneve 1973. 234--246. (Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance.
XXXVI.)
61. +Lege... Bezae quoque ... maledicta et loedorias in Eshusium praeterea in Alciatum et
Blandratam." De falsa et vera AA4v., 128.
62. MARCHETTI: La storiografia 389--392. -- IDEM: Le +explicationes" giovannee de
Sozzini e l'antitrinitarismo transilvano del Cinquecento. In: Rapporti veneto-ungheresi all'epoca
del Rinascimento. ed. Tibor KLANICZAY. Bp. 1975. 351--352.
63. Rövid magyarázat 55--56.
64. Rövid magyarázat 35.
58

65. Rövid magyarázat 35.
66. +...dicimus verbum domini et spiritum sanctum non equidem fuisse apud Deum
personas individua, aut aliud sophisticum, sed fuisse ipsius virtutes et dispensationes, quibus usus
est tanquam manibus in omnium rerum creatione." De falsa et vera EEr., 153.
67. +Nec est cur simus soliciti in dostinctionibus vestigandis, cum nihil aliud sit verbum,
quam ipsemet Deus loquens, et spiritus sanctus, quam Dei patris vis atque potentia, et ipsemet
Deus potens et sanctus." De falsa et vera EE3., 153.
68. Rövid magyarázat 91--92.
69. Rövid magyarázat 96--97.
70. Carlos Gilly alone has demonstrated a close relationship between De falsa et vera and
Servet's Christianismi restitutio. Cf: Carlos GILLY: Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck bis 1600
Ein Querschnitt durch die spanische Geistesgeschichte aus der Sicht einer europäischen
Buchdruckerstadt, Basel--Frankfurt am Main, 1985. 289. (Basler Beiträge zur
Geschichtswissenschaft 151.)
71. +Pro carnali expiatione erant in Levitico statutae hostiae, et sanguinis effusiones, in
quibus nulla erat peccatorum remissio vera, ut ait apostolus Heb. 9. et 10." Christianismi restitutio
323.
72. +Sic erant in Levitico hostiae expiatoriae, et peccatorum remissiones per variorum
animalium sanguinis effusiones Levitici 5. et 6. non autem verae fuerunt, sed futurae remissionis
typi et symbola Hebrae 9. et 10." De falsa et vera CCr., 137.
73. +Quare hodie Christus non dat servis suis electis honores, filios, incolumitatem et
divitias, ut Abrahae et posteris eius dedit post se, sed crucem et persecutiones?" De falsa et vera
CC2r., 139.
74. +Non desunt tamen hodie, qui Aegyptiacos Izraelitas (omnes scilicet exceptis duobus,
reprobatos) dicant fuisse omnes spirituales, quia omnes eandem escam spiritualem comederunt, et
omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt I. Cor. 10. sed cum Paulus ibidem vocet Israelem
carnalem, et dicat, fuisse sub nube figuram, differentiam facit manifestam inter carnem et
spiritum, inter nubem et lucem, inter figuram et veritatem. Erat ibi non spiritualis populus, sed
cibis ideo ibi spiritualiter dicitur, quia spirituale mysterium figurabat in manna et petra
adumbratum. Petra ipsa Oreb spiritualiter Christus, quia Christum adumbrabat."Christianismi
restitutio 323.
75. +Quam etiam apposite illud Pauli I. Corinthiorum 10. producant, vide contextum, qui
manifestam differentiam facit inter carnem et spiritum, inter nubem et lucem, inter figuram et
veritatem, cum vocat Israelem carnalem; non enim erat ibi populus spiritualis, sed ideo ibi cibus et
potus spiritualis dicitur, quia mysterium spiritulale figurabat in manna et petra adumbratum. Sed
nota Pauli verba, cum dicit sequente eos Petra, non ait tunc existente vel praecedente." De falsa et
vera BB3v--BB4r., 134--135.
76. +Nec dicimus Patres absqua ulla fide fuisse, vel de vita aeterna desperasse, sed
docemus cum Paulo spe tantum salvos eos factos, qui agnoverunt Christi futuram resurrectionem,
ad plenitudinem temporum usque, non quidem in morte aeterna, sed in umbra mortis omnes
delituisse. Si fuero, inquit Christus, exaltatus, omnia traham meipsum, non antequam esset
59

exaltatus, quempiam traxit. J.12." De falsa et vera CCr-v., 137--138.
77. +Israel per 40 annos in deserto. Christus 40 diebus in deserto tentatus Math. 4. Nunc
nos per deserta Antichristi a 40 annis post Lutherum vagamur sub Babylone." De falsa et vera
CC4r., 143.
78. GLRSKI, Grzegorz Pawel 230--234.
79. On this, see Róbert Dán: +Judaizare" -- the Career of a Term. In: Antitrinitarianism in
the Second, 25--34.
80. +Item ex eodem fundamento sequeretur, quod Romae sit iubileus, similis Judaico,
quod nos aqua falsa et hyssopo Judaica spiritualitate rite aspergemur, quod campanas sacras
habeamus pro typis synagogae, lampades pro lampadibus, et pro lapideo templo lapideum
templum, idolis et abominationibus plenum." Christianismi restitutio 417.
81. +Tak Milosciwe lata swego okrutnego, gdzie wszystki lupi obciaza a do zlosci droge
otwarza, broni onym Zydowskim, co sie wracalo 50. Roku, gdzie wszyscy ubodzy utrapieni mieli
w nim ochlode... Czarowaney wody s Poganstwa wzietey broni ona woda krowy plowey. Num.
19. ... Kosciolow swych broni onym Solomonowym, gdysz on jeden Bozy, od Boga postawiony.
Rozdzial K4v--Lr.
82. +Similiter, quod vota, et Nazareatus legis, non in baptismo per Christum, sed per
cucullas implentur, et quod implementum legis Nazareorum est cuculla." Christianismi restitutio
417.
83. +Mnichow broni onymi Názáreyczky y Rechabity." Rozdzial K4r.
84. F. S. BOCK: Historia antitrinitariorum I. Regiomonti et Lipsiae 1776. 616. and Robert
WALLACE: Antitrinitary biography II. London 1850. 191. Our analysis at the same time takes
issue with the statement of Szczucki's quoted review, written in an unusually harsh tone against
Pirnát, that Polish Unitarian theologians were concerned with social and political subjects during
synodal debates only, concentrating as writers strictly on theological subjects. Cf: ORP, XXXIV.
1989. 224. és APH 65. 1992. 138.
85. Rövid útmutatás 7--8.
86. Rövid útmutatás 9.
87. Rövid útmutatás 31.
88. +Ex hominis primi delicto est facta magna serpentis potestas, quae hominis secundi
beneficio tollitur. Pollutio magna facta est per serpentem in caelo, in terra et in paradiso ipso. Ex
consortio spiritus immundi est caelum factum immundum sicut terra, et terreus paradisus. Caelum
factum est immundum inventa in angelis Dei pravitate, ut ait Job. Adeo sunt caeli sol, luna, et
astra a serpente omnia contaminata et polluta, ut eadem ratione, qua nos oportet in cinerem reverti,
oporteat etiam caelos ipsos cum sole, luna, et stellis, ignea vi in die iudicii dissolui." Christianismi
restitutio, 390.
89. Rövid útmutatás 16.
90. Rövid útmutatás 24--25.
60

91. +Ut vero rem totam ostendamus, est nobis perpendendum, duplicem esse mortem, ut
Johannes in Apocalypsi vocat mortem primam et mortem secundam: ambas ex Adae delicto
sequutas, licet varia ratione. Ex Adae delicto est omnibus sequuta corporis mors, quam infernus
comitatur vsque ad Christi iudicium, in quo mors et infernus destruentur, ut docet idem Ioannes.
Huius infernalis mortis causa est incorporatio satanae, in hominem intrusio et potestas, ut mox
declarabo. Unde et parvuli ipsi, ex innato isto inquinamento subiiciuntur corporali morti et
inferno. ... Ob delictum Adae est facta quaedam satanae in homines potestas, ad malum cognitum
stimulans: unde in finali iudicio sequetur corporis et animae mors: quae dicitur mors secunda
irremissibilis." Christianismi restitutio, 358.
92. Rövid útmutatás 33--34.
93. Rövid útmutatás 35.
94. Rövid útmutatás 37.
95. +Velamen eis inerat, ne quis eorum posset splendorem faciei Christi videre. Elias
operuit vultum pallio, ne faciem Christi videret. 3. Reg. 19. Ita et Moses fecit Exod. 3. qui et
postea per obturatum foramen non potuit faciem sed posterioira Christi videre. Exod. 33."
Christianismi restitutio 317.
96. Rövid útmutatás 40.
97. +Eadem deinceps ratione Moses ipse ponebat velamen super faciem suam, ne filii
Izrael splendorem illum Christi in eius facie viderent, sicut erat velamen literae, ne intelligerent
abdita intus mysteria spiritus. Imo ne Mozes erat sui splendoris conscius."Christianismi restitutio,
317.
98. Rövid útmutatás 40.
99. Rövid útmutatás 37.
100. Rövid útmutatás 50.
101. Rövid útmutatás 61.
102. Rövid útmutatás 60.
103. Rövid útmutatás 58.
104. Rövid útmutatás 74.
105. Rövid útmutatás 59.
106. Rövid útmutatás 50.
107. +Christus externos non nisi per parabolas, hoc est figurate et tectis verbis
alloquebatur: suis autem discipulis, hoc est, credentibus, charitate praeditis, obedientibus et eum
sequentibus omnia postea seorsim exponebat Math. 11. 7., Johan. 5." Biblia interprete S. C., una
ejusdem annotationibus, Basileae, per Jacobum Parcum, sumptibus Oporini. 1551. (The texts
mentioned are on the unnumbered pages of that edition.)
61

108. From the literature on Castellio the following study has been particularly useful from
a hermeneutical point of view: Heiz LIEBING: Die Frage nach einem hermeneutischen Prinzip
bei Castellio. In: Autour de Michel Servet et de Sebastien Castellion. Ed. Bruno BECKER.
Haarlem 1953. 206--224.
109. Rövid útmutatás 53.
110. Rövid útmutatás 58.
111. Rövid útmutatás 68.
112. Rövid útmutatás 71.
113. De trinitatis eroribus libri septem. Per Michaelem Serueto, alias Reues ab Aragonia
Hispanum. Anno MDXXXI. (Facsimile edition: Frankfurt a.M. 1965) 97--98.
114. Cristianismi restitutio 125.
115. +Non est sine significatione, quod in veteri testamento, toties in Deo legas manus,
oculos, faciem, et pedes, corporabilibus oculis visos: et quod nihil horum in novo testamento
reperiatur, sed eius oppositum, nempe Deus spiritus est. Ratio est in promptu: quia tunc Christi
apud Deum persona figurabatur. Non erat tunc realis distinctio patris a filio, sed ipse Deo
tribuebantur formae corporeae, quae, nunc sunt in filio." Christianismi restitutio, 105.
116. +Quod si interrogabunt, cui iusserit Deus pater dicendo, Faciamus (ne vanis
abducamur speculationibus) vel Angelis imperasse dicemus, eo quod ipsarum sub veteri
testamento opera passim usus sit, vel verbum illud faciamus non fuisse imperantis, sed sese ad
opus arduum accigentis, et proinde usum fuisse Mosen numero plurali pro singulari hebraeorum
more, uti toto hoc et sequentibus capitibus ostendit." De falsa et vera TT4v., 272.
117. Described in RMNY 304.
118. According to Pirnát's introductory essay quoted above (LXXV.) the author is
unknown. Szczucki's review (ORP XXXIV. 1989. 222. and APH 65. 1992. 135.) seems to be
inclined to attribute it also to Grzegorz Pawel.
119. ROTONDO, Calvino 57--86. -- IDEM: Sulla diffusione 87--116. -- IDEM: Verso la
crisi 193--200. -- MARCHETTI, Le +explicationes" 347--351. -- An excellent summary of the
further literature is Lech SZCZUCKI: W kregu myslicieli heretyckich, Wroclaw 1972. -- In more
detail: IDEM: Aspetti della critica antitrinitaria sociniana (Il +De origine Trinitatis" di Tomas
Pisecki). In: Archivum historii filozofii i mysli spolecznej 12. 1966. 141--159.
120. The following two passages by Fausto Sozzini from 1592 are usually quoted for the
denial of Servet: +Hoc primum negamus, Servetum fuisse progenitorem nostrum, quippe a quo
nec sententiam nostram de Deo et Christo acceperimus, et hac ipsa in re non parum ab ipso
dissideamus, praesertim in explicando quid sit illud verbum aut sermo de quo Johannes in
principio sui evangeli loquitur, sed multo magis iis interpretandis, quae illi ibidem tribuuntur, quae
tamen maximi sunt momenti ad recte intelligendum quid de Christo sentire aut possimus aut
debeamus." (First of all we deny that Servet is our forefather for we did not take our views on God
and Christ from him and we also differ from him in no small degree, especially in what the verb
should be that John speaks of at the beginning of his gospel but even more so in the explication of
those attributed at the same place to the evangelist, and these are very important to correctly
62

understand what we can or have to think of Christ.) and: +Cum nos iustius hominis nec facta nec
dosctrinam probemus... hunc, non nostrum, sed Tritheitarum et novorum Arianorum fuisse
ducem." (Since we do not approve of neither the deeds nor the teachings of that man... he was not
our leader, but that of Tritheists and new Arians.) Faustus SOCINIUS: Opera omnia. Irenopoli
(Amsterdam) 1656. II. 535b. Quoted in ROTONDL, Calvino 763. On the declarations from the
1560s. See MARCHETTI, La storiografia 381, and Le +explicationes" 349--350. In a recent
summary Rotondo emphasized the role of Dario Senese in a particularly novel way. Cf. Lelio
SOZZINI: Opere, 360--371.
121. +Ubi, quaesimus, cum Arrio unquam diximus, Christum fuisse ante conditum
mundum creaturam genitam? Ubi, cum Sabellio patrem, filium et spiritum sanctum unius dei tria
esse pura nomina? Ubi, cum Ebione et Photino, Christum Josephi filium fuisse? Ubi cum Serveto,
verbum ex tribus elementis purissimis et increatis fuisse genitum? Ubi inquam, cum Gentile, quod
verbum illud aeternum fuerit essentia genita de ingenita patris essentia?" Refutatio propositionum
Petri Melii A3r.
122. This is in accordance with the statements where Dávid merely says that he teaches
other things than Servetus: +It is part of the same vile calumny that he impertinently meddles
saying Servetus has said that mankind was born of God's substance and is some part of the
Godhead etc. What are you fooling around, Károlyi, if you really do not understand nor want to
understand either Servetus' or Ferenc Dávid's religion?" Az egy Atya Istennek... (described in
RMNy No. 304.) Hhhv and: +But why is it that I have trusted myself upon the true revenging God
and the truth that I have learnt neither from Alcoranum nor Servetus but from the word of the
living God?" Az egy a magától való br.
123. See most recently the firm opinion of Jerome FRIEDMAN: +Unlike the question and
problems first raised in the Errors and Dialogues, the spiritualist solutions of the Restitution were
of no interest to Unitarians and for good reason. The mature Servetus was no less antithetical to
Unitarianism than the views of Luther, Calvin or Rome. Even the early works give indications that
Servetus found Unitarianism thoroughly repugnant. Thus, only some of the early questions raised
by Servetus were adopted by developing Unitarianism, but none of the mature solutions."
(Michael Servetus. A Case Study in Total Heresy. Geneve 1978. p. 15.) On the other hand, the
element of reinterpretation is stressed by C. Gilly among others, revealing even its mechanism in
his analysis Declarationis Jesu Christi filii Dei libri Quinque Authore Michaele Serveto alias
Revues Tarraconensi. In connection with the results of Uwe PLATH: Noch einmal über
+Lyncurius". Einige Gedanken zur Gribaldi, Curione, Calvin und Servet. In: BHR XXXI. 1969.
583--610 and IDEM: Calvin und Basel in den Jahren 1552--1556. Basel und Stuttgart, 1974.
156--159. (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 133.) he also showed that the author of the
work written in 1566 was Matteo Gribaldi. Cf: Carlos GILLY: Spanien und der Basler, 298--318.
-- See also Elisabeth F. HIRSCH: Servetus and the Early Socinians, in: The Proceedings of The
Unitarian Universalist Historical Society XX. 1986. 20--31.
124. Cf: Valerio MARCHETTI: La rottura ermeneutica sociniana. Ricerca sulla struttura
delle prefazioni alle +explicationes" di Lelio e Fausto Sozzini. In: Italia Venezia e Polonia tra
Medievo e Eta Moderna, ed. Vittore BRANCA e Sante GRACIOTTI. Firenze 1980. 113--136.
125. Lech SZCZUCKI: La prima edizione dell' Explicatio di Fausto Sozzini, in:
Rinascimento XVII. 1967. 319--327. The first edition described in RMNY 252.
126. +Nomen autem nostrum non adiecimus, nam licet in iis regionibus simus, ubi ab
hominum iniuria metuendum nobis non est, libuit tamen antequam nomen nostrum prodamus,
aliorum exigui huius laboris nostri iudicium cognoscere." Explicatio K2r.
63

127. PIRNcT: L'Italia 436--447.
128. Brevis enerratio disputationis Albanae de Deo trino et Christo duplici coram
Serenissimo principe et tota ecclesia decem diebus habita anno domini 1568. 8. Martii. Albae
Juliae 1568. Described in RMNY 249.
129. +Cerinthi et Ebionis aliam fuisse opinionem, quam Christum ante Mariam hominem
fuisse deificatum (uti dicit Melius) Irenaeus ostendit libro 3. capite 19. ubi narrat. Cerinthum
docuisse Christum quendam aeternum descendisse in Jesum, et subinde dividere Christum.
Falsum igitur est, quod ex Hieronymo et aliis citatur de Ebionis et Cerinthi haeresibus. Falsum
etiam esse, quod in hunc usum Evangelium suum conscripserit Joannes, indicat ipsemet capite 20.
Ubi dicit, se Evangelium scripisse, ut credamus Jesum esse Christum filium Dei." Brevis
enarratio Z2r.
130. Cf: Aggiunte all' epistolario di Fausto Sozzini 1561--1568. a cura di Valerio
MARCHETTI e Giampaolo ZUCCHINI, Warszawa--Lódz 1982. 102--104. (Biblioteka pisarzy
reformacyjnych 14.)
131. Cf: MARCHETTI: La storiografia 401--405. IDEM: Le +explicationes" 347--359.
132. SZCZUCKI: La prima edizione, 320--321 and Polish and Transylvanian 234--235.
133. +Det Dominus tibi interpreti eundem spiritum, quo Johannes praeditus scripsit de
aeterna Christi divinitate evangelium. Negant hoc nostri et primum Ioannis caput totum servire
Christi homini aiunt. Quod quam vere dicant multis id verbis demonstravi in meo scripto adversus
Gregorium Pauli, Sarmaticorum haereticorum antesignanum." Correspondance de Theodore de
Beze IX. (1568), 63.
134.ROTONDL: Sulla diffusione 112--113. and Lelio SOZZINI: Opere 350--361.
135. +Potuisset vero meus hic liber planior et locupletior forte in publicum prodire, si non
propter locorum magnam differentiam et Adversariorum astum, qui scripta sua difficulter in
manus nostrorum pervenire patiuntur, serius ad nos perferrentur libri, quibus impia haec dogmata
propagantur. Etenim cum tres mei libri de Aeterno Filio iam impressi essent, accepi demum
Francisci Davidis librum contra Petrum Melium, Interpretationem anonymam primi capitis
Joannis Evangelistae, cuius partem ante manu descriptam vir bonus ad me miserat." SIMLER: De
aeterno I8v.
136. Correspondance IX. (1568). 128.
137. Rövid útmutatás 13.
138. Rövid útmutatás 11.
139. Described in RMNY 246.
140. CScSZMAI: Thordai... való felelet D2v.
141. In a review of one of my earlier essays János KcLDOS singles out points in Refutatio
scripti Petri Melii indicative of the knowledge of Fausto Sozzini's Explicatio. (Cf: ItK, XCVII.
1993. 417--418.)
64

142. +Nos non dicimus, praedestinatione esse vel fuisse Filium, sed realem et praesentem,
respectu patris. Cui sunt omnia realia et praesentia. Quod autem ad nos attinet, fuit in mysterio et
abscondito." Disputatio in causa sacrosanctae V3r. Ilyen címmel jelent meg a hitvitáról a
református beszámoló (leírása RMNY 256.). Az alábbiakban is ebbal idézünk, mivel ez
teljesebbnek látszik, mint az antitrinitárius változat. (Described in RMNY 247.)
143. +... propter peccata, cum omnes creaturae sint corruptae, tam caelum, quam terra,
necessum fuerit Christo etiam illas a corruptione liberare." Disputatio in causa sacrosanctae Y3v.
144. +Nos prorsus sumus lapsi, angeli non item. Sed nec angeli sunt in tali perfectione, ut
possint coram Deo subsistere sine capite Christo. Sed quare hoc fiat, scire non possumus."
Disputatio in causa sacrosanctae A2r.
145. +Cerinthi et Ebionis aliam fuisse opinionem, quam Christum ante Mariam hominem
fuisse deificatum (uti dicit Melius) Irenaeus ostendit libro 3. capite 19. ubi narrat, Cerinthum
docuisse Christum quendam aeternum descendisse in Jesum, et subinde dividere Christum.
Falsum igitur est, quod ex Hieronymo et aliis citatur de Ebionis et Cerinthi haeresibus. Falsum
etiam esse, quod in hunc usum Evangelium suum conscripserit Joannes, indicat ipsemet capite 20.
Ubi dicit, se Evangelium scripsisse, ut credamus Jesum esse Christum filium Dei." Brevis
enarratio Z2r.
146. +Quantum vere ad Ebionem et Cerinthum attinet, in quorum odium Ioannem
scripsisse asseritur, id ab omni veritate alienum videtur. Si enim ita res haberet, verisimile non est
Ioannem rem hanc leviter silentio praeterisse, quin saltem vel semel haereticos huiusmodi
nominaret." Franciscus Junius, III. Defensio catholicae doctrinae de S. Trinitate, Heidelbergae 5--
6.
147. +Quantum vere ad Ebionem et Cerinthum attinet, in quorum odium Ioannes scripsisse
dicitur, id ab omni veritate alienum esse videtur. Primum enim longa alia fuit Cerinthi et Ebionis
sententia, atque ab omnibus passim hac nostra aetate scribitur et superioribus saeculis ab aliquibus
scriptum est, si vetutissimo scriptori Irenaeo credimus: qui utriusque doctrinam recens, quod
Christum -- verbum scilicet dei -- ante Mariam fuisse negarent, ne indicat quidem; imo, cum de
Cerintho loquitur, contrarium innuere, vel potius aperte dicere videtur, si quis paulo diligentius
eius verba expenderit. Deinde, verisimile non est, Ioannem rem tantam ita leviter silentio
praeteriturum fuisse, quin haereticos huiusmodi saltem vel nominaret." Explicatio K3r.
148. +Piis ergo et omnibus amantibus veritatem reliquimus iudicandum, quam frivolum sit
et Platonicum quiddam ex syllabis et literis in rebus divinis philosophari." Refutatio
propositionum A4r.
149. Az szent írásnak fundamentumából vett magyarázat E2r. The work, anonymously
published in 1568, is described in RMNY 253.
150. Dávid Ferenc, Elsa része... predicaciocnac... Gyulafehérvár 1569. 84r. (Described in
RMNY 269.)
151. ROTONDO, Verso la crisi 193.
152. +Aaron quoque datur a Domini Mosi pro ore. Num hoc ad ipsius Aaronis vel
substantiam, vel naturam pertinere dicemus? quid absurdius existimari posset?" Explicatio Lr.
153. Elsa része... predicaciocnac... 97v.
65

154. Az egy önmagatól való... Istenral Dd3v.
155. Az egy önmagatól való... Istenral Bb4r.
156. Elsa része... predicaciocnac... 112v.
157. +Nam quid absurdis dici potest, quam Evangelistam prius narasse verbum in mundo
fuisse, ad suos venisse, et potestatem, ut filii Dei fiant, iis dedisse, qui ei fidem adhibuerunt,
deinde subiungere ipsum verbum carnem factum esse? quasi ad suos venerit, antequam natum
foret, et prius in mundo fuerit, postea vero carnem sit factum." Explicatio N3r--N4r.
158. Az egy a magatól... Istenral Ff4v.
159. BORBÉLY: A magyar unitarius 78.
160. Konrad GLRSKI: Grzegorz Pawel jako tlumacz Blandraty i Fausta Socyna. In: RP
IV. 1926. 24--31. és Grzegorz Pawel 248--254.
161. Published in: JAKAB: Dávid Ferenc II. 12--13.
162. PIRNcT: Die Ideologie 163--165.
163. +Veram esse et fundamentum habere firmum in verbo dei nostram assertionem video,
et per eam omnia obiecta adversariorum dissolvere non possum."
164. +Si enim propter patris divinitatem Christo inhabitantem, deus est, non video,
quomodo non unus sit deus filius cum patre; et si unus, quo non aeternus, infinitus, et dico
respectu divinatis. Si enim vero hominem illum asserimus esse deum, quomodo non erit creatus et
formatus imo recens deus."
66

Back
II.
The BAPTISMAL DEBATES IN THE LATE 1560S
The polemics between Melius and Ferenc Dávid and their followers were initially confined to
Trinitology only. It is also not without significance that it is Melius who first tells us about the debates
erupting between the two camps over the issue of baptism. Melius launched his first attack against Ferenc
Dávid and his followers in the Hungarian confession1 published in the summer of 1567 because,
following Servet, the latter had rejected paedobaptism. This is highly remarkable because the work was
dedicated not to John Sigismund but to the burgesses of Debrecen, Nagyszombat, Kassa and Várad. What
is more, in a number of practical issues, this work held a position (interest taxes, freedom of commerce,
etc.) with the interests of the burgesses in view. If Melius argued against Anabaptism in such a context, he
also knew that he would completely compromise Dávid and his friends by evoking the sceptre of
Anabaptism.
The other side, on the other hand, had stepped carefully formulating their views on this issue from
the very beginning. They took a stand against paedobaptism quite openly when printing the
arguments,2 to be discussed later, at the end of the invitation, dated January 20, for the Council to be held
at Torda on March 3, 1568. Typically, however, Ferenc Dávid protested in the very same document not
only against the fact that Melius wanted to have polygamy among the subjects of the dispute of February
2, 1568 at Debrecen but also that the reformer from Debrecen had included the question of infant baptism
among the theses of the same. He claimed they had never commented on either subject either in public or
in private: +We do not know whether what has been added about polygamy and paedobaptism has been
done with or without the intent to denigrate; and since we has discussed neither polygamy nor the baptism
of infants either publicly or in private, we cannot stop wondering why you doubt these."3 Furthermore, he
very cunningly says that the only reason they touch the subject of paedobaptism is that Melius and his
friends force them to do so: +...being forced by God through you, we have appended a few arguments that
would appear to be against paedobaptism, wishing to hear the verdict of the churches so that we can obey
those who teach what is more correct."4
With this denial, and by simultaneously publishing the arguments, Dávid's purpose was not only
to make the polemic against paedobaptism appear as something recent, nascent, but also to get the debate
out of the context it had been put into by Melius. He wished to proceed in this question by depriving
Melius of the usual ammunition of anti-Anabaptist propaganda. Of course, it is not true that he had not
commented on this issue, if only in private. For it is hard to imagine that this layer of Restitutio had
escaped comment during private conversations, and the other reason they had to face the issue of
paedobaptism was that Anabaptism was in the centre of the doctrine of the Polish Brethren, with whom
they had been maintaining so close connections.
Their having to face this issue is more than a hypothesis because there is evidence to prove that
the Transylvanians were following with attention, as well as trying to influence, the events in Poland.
Blandrata's famous letter of September 21, 1565, to Grzegorz Pawel, one of the leaders of the Polish
Antitrinitarians, has been mentioned above in a different context. What is important from that now is that
the Italian doctor warns the Polish Antitrinitarian not to be concerned with the problem of paedobaptism.
He says that the name and the doctrine of the Anabaptists evokes suspicion and hate in people. Claiming
that it is of secondary importance when baptism is administered with respect to salvation, he urges
Grzegorz Pawel to lead his faithful gently and without force to the truth in this matter, not making it an
important issue.
67

Although aware of this famous letter, the Hungarian literature on the subject has not examined
those documents from Poland that raise serious problems of interpretation. For there are a number of
documents from Poland that would seem to suggest that the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians, already during
the first period, held views that came very close to completely questioning the significance of baptism.
The protocols, in the 17th century so-called Kolozsvár manuscript, of the Antitrinitarian Synod held
between December 25 and 31, 1565, in Wegrów recorded that the Transylvanian congregations had sent a
letter to the synod. The document has preserved the arguments of the Transylvanians as well. +The letter
written to our congregations by the Transylvanian churches that have agreed with us about the teaching
on the Father God, our Lord, the Father of Jesus Christ, has also been brought to this synod. In that letter
we were warned not to disrupt the congregations on account of baptism, and several arguments were
listed for the thesis that baptism was not necessary for salvation, and even if advancing the edification of
the faithful, it should be treated in a way that would serve the edification and not the destruction or disruption
of God's church. A number of arguments were listed to prove that the rite of baptism was useful in
ancient times only, when used to initiate the Jews or Gentiles who had converted to our Lord, Jesus
Christ. They admonished us to be patient and to tolerate those who were of this opinion. Since the letter
was not brought by their own messenger but delivered by third parties, and because the majority of this
synod held views on baptism that differed from those of the Transylvanians, we did not answer them at
that time."5
Stanislaw Lubieniecki's ecclesiastical history says something similar when, giving an account of
the polemic on Anabaptism that unfolded among the Polish Brethren in 1565-1566, mentions that the
Transylvanians had warned the Poles against it in a letter. It is worth quoting the passage in question:
+After the Transylvanian churches had learnt of this fierce debate between the Poles and the Lithuanians,
they warned them a number of times not to start debates and quarrels on this subject, which appeared less
necessary to them than it had in those old days to those converted to Christ among the Jews or the
Gentiles. They explained this in their long writing, which also showed the signs of judaizing. They
questioned among other things that baptism was necessary for salvation, and that baptism be almost a new
saviour and an idol similar to that metal serpent. Thus those who do this act as if they wanted to seek and
win Noah's ark, Jeremiah's yoke or the bow of King Joachim. These very piously teach that the old
Christian baptism, which had been introduced for the sake of the heathens who believed miracles, was
just as unfit for posterity as the lamb's blood of Pesach or the sight of the metal serpent. The apostles
themselves held that children with one believing parent were saints, and the thing itself teaches that the
children whose parents are both Christians and who are brought up in the piety of the Christian religion
are saints and believers and will not be lost, though not baptized. Furthermore, the removal of the error
concerning the original sin will cease it consequence, which is washing, i.e. ablution by baptism."6
There is some contradiction between the two sources, and Szczucki7 in the Polish literature on the
subject seems to believe the protocols and says the Transylvanians, with Blandrata's help, sent to the
synod a letter dedicated especially to this subject. Górski,8 on the other hand, relying on the version in
Lubieniecki holds that the Transylvanian congregations sent each of the various congregations in Poland
separate letters. We believe, however, that the credibility of the contents of these documents is strongly
questionable. It is not the fact of correspondence that we doubt since we have seen above that the
Transylvanians maintained connections with Poland even prior to the open appearance of
Antitrinitarianism on the scene. The context, however, of the passage quoted from Lubieniecki would
make one pause. The passage in question is in Chapter Three of Book Three of the work, which, having
related the rise and the spreading of the custom of paedobaptism from the apostolic times till the Council
of Trident, tells about those who first raised their voice against the dogma in Poland. In that context the
chapter goes on to mention the events of the sixties, including the documents of the Synod at Wegrów,
and discusses the debates following the latter also by providing documents. In the subsequent part,
however, precise chronology disintegrates, and also the events of more than two decades are discussed
briefly. The quotation in question follows an edifying example on Mikolaj Wedrogowski not fitting in the
chronology, and is followed in turn by a relation of the debate between Marcin Czechowic and Fausto
68

Sozzini, and then a number of edifying examples and events without a firm chronology. On the strength
of all this, and with reference also to the turn aliquoties datis literis eosdem monuerunt used in the text, it
would seem logical to assume that the passage in question does not relate to the mid-sixties but rather
sums up the debates that went on for years between the Polish and the Hungarian Antitrinitarians.
This assumption is also confirmed by the arguments attributed to the Transylvanians by
Lubieniecki. The relation contains elements that had actuality in the 1570s only and not earlier. The manifestations
of the judaizing spirit are obviously the views of Palaeologus and Sommer. The statement that
the Transylvanians regard original sin as an error that they have got rid of is particularly important. Until
the sixties this cannot be said about any Antitrinitarians. Something similar applies to the protocols of the
Synod at Wegrów. Remember the passage which says that baptism had significance for converted Jews
and Gentiles only. This argument, included by the way in the quotation from Lubieniecki as well, comes
clearly from Palaeologus. Thus, it would seem that the protocols of the synod contain later interpolations
as well and, therefore, they place events and facts to the mid-sixties that can hardly be conceived to have
belonged there.
This assumption is not refuted by the document described rather laconically by Sandius9 on the
basis of Stanislaw Budzinski's ecclesiastical history, now lost. This description would lead one to
conclude that the 1566 letter of the Transylvanians focussed on rite, that is to say probably opposed the
view very popular among the Polish Brethren which regarded immersio as true baptism only.
In view of subsequent developments it would seem to be important to point out that insufficient
evidence supports the assumption that Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism was permeated, even in its first
period, with tendencies that devalued baptism, regarding it as inconsequential with respect to salvation.
Thus one should rather start from the view held by Blandrata, who, although convinced of the antibiblical
nature of paedobaptism, handled the problem very carefully and repressing the advance therein in
favour of that in the true knowledge of God. The yield of the following few years is a proof for that, and
the events in Poland certainly had an influence on such a turn of events in Transylvania.
It is, of course, impossible here to treat the events in Poland in detail. All we can do is merely
refer to the fact that in Poland Antitrinitarianism was closely correlated with Anabaptism from the beginning.
All we can do is mention, on the basis of Stanislaw Kot's article, that in the middle of the 1560s
Antitrinitarianism was particularly strong in Vilno (Lithuania) with the consequence that many of the
Lithuanian magnates broke with Antitrinitarianism.10
It is not known, obviously, how much detailed information the Transylvanians had of all this,
though it is hard to imagine that Blandrata, who enjoyed a remarkably good relationship with Duke
Mikolaj Czarny Radziwill, was not aware of these developments. Caution for them was thus justified by
direct experience but, on the other hand, a number of factors obliged them to formulate their views on the
issue of paedobaptism as well.
It has been mentioned that Catechismus Ecclesiarum Dei made on the basis of the Heidelberg
Catechism embodies the theologically rather instable compromise concluded by the followers of Dávid
and Melius around the middle of 1566. This agreement was obviously made under pressure from the state
authorities, through the mediation of the ruling prince. It is perfectly understandable that while looking
for compromises based on convictions that considered political interests as well was the order of the day,
it was practical to keep the frontline of conflicts as narrow as possible. This in itself was an obstacle that
kept other aspects (like Anabaptism) of their sources (first of all Servet) from coming to the surface. The
situation changed in the second half of 1566 when practice had increasingly shown that the ambiguous
formulations of Catechismus were interpreted differently by both parties and that the compromise was
impossible to maintain. This in certain respects gave free way to the international collaterals of
Antitrinitarianism.
69

But there was more than that to it. Blandrata, in control of the steps of the Antitrinitarians, never
limited his activities to the country where he was currently residing. That was precisely the touch of
genius in him that he was able to reconcile keeping in touch with his compatriots exiled on account of
heresy with holding them together, very flexibly adjusting to the political conditions of the given
countries. We have seen that even after he had settled in John Sigismund's Transylvania, he did not limit
his activities to that region. Indeed, Konrad Górski11 was hardly exaggerating when saying that Blandrata
was trying to establish some kind of religious union between the two countries on the basis of Christ's
purified gospel. If he continued believing that he could use the Transylvanians in exerting pressure on the
Polish Brethren, he had to modify his tactics to some extent. He had to remember that the Polish
Antitrinitarians had not abandoned preaching their Anabaptist doctrines in spite of his warning.
Therefore, he cannot have disliked the idea of the Transylvanians exerting their moderating influence
while picking up some Anabaptist ideas to some extent in the process. For it was obvious that in an
opposite case the cooperation would lose its strength despite all the close relationship of the trinitological
meditation. And the Transylvanians also badly needed that cooperation. They could not stand up in a
struggle against Melius in the long run, who had not only the authorities of the Helvetian movement of
the Reformation, but in this respect the Lutherans as well, behind him. In addition to the similarities
between the political systems of the two countries, dynastic links also argued for the connections with the
Poles.
It would seem that these political considerations also played a role in the gradual rapprochement
between the Polish and the Hungarian Antitrinitarians, and these aspects would also place the approach of
the Transylvanians to Anabaptism to late 1566 and early 1567. This, however, hardly meant more at the
time than cautiously questioning the necessity of the baptism of infants.
The first move towards antipaedobaptism
On the basis of all that, it would seem that it was not without reason that in the summer of 1567
Melius spoke of the Anabaptism of +Servet's bastards". If, however, it has been emphasized how
ingeniously he gave a glimpse also of the social dangers of Anabaptism in the Hungarian version of the
Debrecen confession, Ferenc Dávid cannot be denied the cleverness and the shrewdness either. He replied
to the Latin version of the above mentioned confession with Refutatio scripti Petri Melii, dedicated to
John Sigismund, from the Synod of Marosvásárhely, on September 1, 1567. In that, in accordance with
the tendency of the targeted Latin work, he did not mention paedobaptism. This matched his tactics
perfectly. Apparently he intended to arrive at a more biblical doctrine of baptism by introducing the issue
to the public only step by step. This is clearly visible in his Rövid magyarázat, which was published in
autumn, 1567.
In the preface the +servant of the crucified Jesus Christ" writes indignantly about the slanders of
his opponents, who +contend with us not with God's word but with curses, spreading abroad such things
about us that we have not seen even in our dreams, let alone taught, namely that women have no souls:
secondly, that God is the cause of sin, thirdly, that man can have more than one wives."12 It cannot be a
coincidence that Dávid mentions precisely these +false accusations". By emphasizing these charges
unworthy of refusal, his purpose was to discredit those accusations of Melius' that were based on more
realistic grounds and to be able to continue his criticism of paedobaptism without being encumbered by
the slanders usually brought up against Anabaptists. The fact that he does not say the move against
paedobaptism was something that +we have not seen even in our dreams" speaks for itself.
It would seem to confirm our assumption that scholarship is still rather uncertain regarding the
70

doctrines mentioned above. None of them can be shown to have been followed by Dávid. Particularly
inconceivable is the libel +God is the cause of sin" and the thesis concerning the souls of women. As to
the former, the only person around Dávid who formulated such a view was Elias Gczmidele,13 but the
Transylvanian leadership ostracized him. (We do know, however, that this spiritualistic doctrine occurs
among the teachings of Tamás Arany.) And as to the charge regarding the souls of women, it is not
possible to mention even similar contemporary fallacies.
The situation is somewhat more complicated with regard to polygamy. Géza Kathona argues that
the fact that Melius later wanted to discuss it indicates that +Dávid might have said a thing or two
concerning the polygamy of the Old Testament patriarches that some people later misinterpreted with
inflated biblicism".14 Barna Nagy15 has pointed out that Melius knew that Ochino had been exiled from
Zürich for his dialogues on polygamy. If we remember that both De falsa et vera and Rövid magyarázat
mention him as a +perfect and God fearing pious" man, it is not difficult to imagine that Melius was
aware of the sympathy of the Transylvanians for Ochino even prior to the publication of these works.
Thus, it is quite possible that the accusation goes back to that.16
It must be emphasized, however, that Dávid's conduct is remarkable even if Melius and his
friends, following their reformer-teachers, had earlier, during a verbal propaganda campaign addressed
these accusations more explicitly to those in Transylvania. By reproducing these charges in a polarized,
pointed form he opened the way for the covert preaching of anti-paedobaptism.
To this was added the tactics of progressive apportioning, which he had obviously learnt from
Blandrata. An examination of the passages discussing baptism will reveal that this work, contrary to the
manifestations of the Transylvanians published by Lubieniecki, gives an emphatic role to +the science on
baptism". This becomes particularly conspicuous if we compare the Hungarian text with the Latin in De
falsa et vera. Both texts analyze in an identical way how the Antichrist corrupted the sacraments. It is
quite noticeable that in a nearly identical context the following statement is missing from the Latin: +And
that is how the Antichrist corrupted true baptism, and those who now want to bring it back to the true way
according to the Apostles are immediately judged by the world as heretics, and people do not want to hear
even their preaching."17
In the second part even more interesting differences can be discerned; differences that make it
clear that the writer does not believe that baptism had a function only in the old days. Indeed, he deems it
more important than communion, the other sacrament recognized by Protestants. This is manifested in the
process of the purification of the church: +The Lord God acted likewise in renewing the sacraments as
well, because first He purified the Lord's supper, baptism itself would be the first seal, and thus He slowly
destroyed the gains of the Antichrist, as we shall relate it for you in due order,"18 -- this is how Dávid describes
this phase of the process towards the +good foundation" +on the way back". It is important to
know that this sentence is not contained in the relevant chapter of De falsa et vera. But the following
locus, similarly accentuating the role of baptism, is also missing from De falsa et vera: +But the fact that
the main and special seal of the foundation is the baptism gained from Christ, is based on the form and
order bequeathed by our Lord Christ and kept by the Apostles as it is written in Mt.28 Mk.16
Acts 2.8.10.16."19
In accordance with that, having listed the other spies living at the same time as Luther and Zwingli
nearly identically as in De falsa et vera, Rövid magyarázat, unlike the Latin version, goes on to mention
the following: +Then later God would give other spies, by whom the true Apostolic baptism, gained by
Christ, has been purified. At the same time, therefore, the Lord God wanted to give the promised land, the
true and pure knowledge, had the people accepted that."20
Although these +other spies" could be but the Anabaptists, it would be erroneous to conclude from
these divergences that Anabaptist tendencies are stronger in Rövid magyarázat. A more likely explanation
71

would be that this work was written for a reading public different from that of the Latin version in that
their language was obviously first of all Hungarian, and among whom it was expedient to lay the
foundations of the later more overt propaganda by emphasizing the importance of baptism. The possible
international reading public, especially the Polish Brethren, did not need such an ideological preparation
since they had long been preoccupied by the issue of baptism.21
Thus, a tendency is discernible in Rövid magyarázat to prepare the ground for further tasks by emphasizing
the significance of baptism. This work, on the other hand, had already started. Neither the Latin
nor the Hungarian versions discuss in detail how the Antichrist has corrupted true baptism, and the stress
on chrism, salt, saliva and other superstitions may create the impression that their polemic was directed
exclusively against Catholics.
This is very appropriately exemplified by the fact that it is in a context scourging Catholic superstitions
(candles, rushlight, the cult of the Virgin Mary and the saints) that both texts declare that the
Antichrist +has much defiled the seals that were for the believers as we can see now among Papists
(italics mine, M.B.), where there is nothing but superstition in both baptism and the Lord's supper". At the
same time, and rather characteristically, he says that the corruption of the sacraments means that the
Antichrist +has placed salvation in them without faith."22 Mentioning the Papists only is a rather
euphemistic procedure since demanding the existence of faith in baptism implies in itself the Anabaptist
doctrine of baptism, which disagrees with the reformers as well. Or rather, this is precisely true for De
falsa et vera only since a significant difference between the Latin and the Hungarian versions makes it
possible to interpret the above passage in different ways in the texts published in 1567 and in 1568.
In both texts the section describing +how the Lord God will deliver us from the spiritual Babylon"
occupies an important place. The here and now relevant passage of this progress -- the purification of the
sacraments -- is presented in more detail and more expressively in Rövid magyarázat. Using a
typographical device, it describes side by side in two columns the process of the restoration of the true
Lord's supper and baptism. Let us take the column discussing baptism and place it next to the Latin text:
+Thus proceeding backwards
also in baptism we have come from
chrism, saliva, salt and candles through
exorcism, crossing, and midwives
baptizing infants in an emergency,
eventually to godparents and
paedobaptism itself."23
+In the same year of 1550 baptismal chrism,
saliva, salt and candles were destroyed, but the rest
remained.
Likewise, the baptismal superstitions, exorcisms,
crossings were destroyed, which are still in use
among the Saxons.
In the same year of 1566 baptism by midwives,
nannies and common folk was destroyed, which
Stancarus had preserved against the Helvetians.
In that year of 1569 [the institution of]
godparents were condemned by János Laskó, which is
still maintained in many places in the holy church, as is
questioning little children."24
It is clear that while this process ends with the abolition of paedobaptism in the Latin text, the
Hungarian version is content with putting an end to abrenuntiatio (+questioning little children"). It is all
the more important since the Hungarian declares even more emphatically than the Latin that this means
the end of +purification".
72

This difference at the assumed end point provides a chance for different interpretations of the
postulate of the existence of faith in the two texts. While the Latin leaves no doubt that it is the faith of
the baptized, the Hungarian allows other interpretations as well. It can hide the view held also by Swiss
reformers that although the essence of baptism is independent of faith, the latter is still needed for one to
receive the former. And even if +godparents were condemned", the theological solution, usual in those
days, ruling out demanding adult baptism could remain: children have faith, they have to be baptized
according to the faith of their parents, and so on.
The difference between the Latin and the Hungarian texts would be particularly revealing if it
could be assumed that the earlier, as we see, Latin version had originally contained the phrase ad ipsum
paedobaptismum ventum. We, however, cannot know this and it is quite possible that the text was
corrected only later, when paedobaptism was already under attack by open theses as well. We assume,
though, that this textual variation well exemplifies the progression that Dávid and his friends used in their
propaganda.
The uncertainty here is hopefully not the inadequacy of the interpreter only. Because if we allow
these passages to be interpreted in an orthodox spirit, some details will contradict that. We must
remember that regarding the Anabaptists as +spies" of the same standing as Luther, Melanchthon and the
other reformers as Rövid magyarázat does along with De falsa et vera was not at all a common
phenomenon. And if in the passage quoted above Dávid declares the +washing" of the sacraments
accomplished and sets inner purification only as a further task, there are places that contradict that.
In the +enthusiastic" part, independent of De falsa et vera, of Chapter Two, Dávid explains that if
the church rests entirely on the pure gospel, then God will give his own +celestial signs" i.e. miracles as
well. This has not happened so far because there has been no true knowledge of God and His Son, nor
true baptism, +bound together with faith". Then he continues: +That was the reason why our knowledge
has not been proven by celestial signs, nor will it be proven until we have left the wilderness of the
Antichrist."25 He specifies this condition in another passage: +...when we have come to that knowledge by
common consent, the faithful will see that nothing was promised to the apostles that will not be given to
us. But we shall say more of that at another time."26 This does not mean that no further labour is needed
for the purification of baptism, and these expressions rather disagree with the resolve that earlier had
declared any further efforts unnecessary. It should be emphatically pointed out here that the true
knowledge of God and true baptism are closely connected in the quoted passages as well, which is usually
characteristic of Anabaptist Antitrinitarianism. Nor can we leave the last sentence (+But we shall say
more of that at another time") of the latter quotation without comment. It would be risky to relate that to
any other later work of Dávid's. (It should be clear from the above that our purposes would be best served
if the remark could be related to Argumenta quibus paedobaptismus impetitur {Arguments against
paedobaptism} as well, published first in 1568.) But we may be allowed to regard this as a confirmation
that Dávid did not think he was having the last word on either the knowledge of God or baptism.
Nor can it be denied, that these passages also can have an orthodox reading. No doubt, there were
readers in those days who held that Christ's church would leave the wilderness of the Antichrist only if
the institution of godparents, +which is still maintained in many places in the holy church," has been
obliterated. The expression +we have come to that knowledge by common consent" would seem to
support this reading. That is to say, there can be an interpretation, in which the unfinished state of the
process of purification merely means that others will also follow the vanguard in undoing the diabolic
inventions that have clung to baptism, i.e. this purification will become universal.
Thus, Rövid magyarázat, in a very concealed, very surreptitious way, and with contradictions that
were either intended or came from Dávid's existing uncertainty, prepares the way for anti-paedobaptism,
for its open appearance. The followers of the baptismal doctrine as represented by the Swiss theologians
cannot have found it erroneous -- though the praise of Anabaptists might have aroused some suspicion --,
73

ut the work must have found approval even among those who were already convinced that paedobaptism
was against the Bible. If in the analysis I was trying to prove the correctness of this latter reading, this
was merely the logical outcome of the problem of the chapter under discussion. There is no doubt that if
paedobaptism had not disappeared in the meantime from the dogmatics of the Antitrinitarian church, this
tendency of the work would have been noted earlier. On the other hand, in order to minimize the
arbitrariness of the interpretation, and also to allow the contradictory nature of the work to unfold, the
differing possibilities of interpretation have to be introduced all along the way.
The antipaedobaptist reception of Servetian Anabaptism
The analysis of Rövid magyarázat will hopefully have shown that Dávid could at least formally
claim in the letter of invitation of January 20, 1568 to the synod planned at Torda that he had never taken
a public position against paedobaptism. He had indeed not attacked it expressis verbis, and the admission
of the covert attempt would have meant abandoning this tactics. The issue must have been raised much
more openly among his followers at that time, but he did not have to admit it. Early in 1568, however, he
thought that the ground had been sufficiently prepared by Rövid magyarázat and the verbal propaganda
probably in a similar spirit for him to come out into the open with his program against paedobaptism.
That is how Argumenta quibus paedobaptismus impetitur was published. The Transylvanians would print
these arguments twice more in addition to the one on the invitation to the synod: once in the same
proportions in the Antitrinitarian account of the dispute which was summoned to Torda but was later
transferred to Gyulafehérvár by John Sigismund,27 and once more, with one more argument added in their
famous publication entitled De regno Christi, in the following year.28
The literature on the subject is rather chaotic as to the source of these 36/37 arguments against
paedobaptism. József Pokoly29 has presumed that their source was a work entitled Büchlein über die
wahrhaftige christliche Taufe, translated into Hungarian probably by Ferenc Dávid from the German version
translated from Flemish by Alexander Wilini. Analyzing the treatise Tractatus de paedobaptismo et
circumcisione [Treatise on paedobaptism and circumcision], which includes the arguments, at the end of
De regno Christi, Antal Pirnát30 has demonstrated that its reasoning and structure has nothing to do with
Wilini's opus. Although not discussing in detail the provenance of the arguments, Stanislaw Kot31 has
shown during a comparison of De regno Christi and Christiani restitutio that these found their way into
the Transylvanian publication independently from Servet. Géza Kathona,32 on the other hand, holds that
the theses were +literally" adopted from Servet's Restitutio.
Such contradictions in the literature on the subject has necessitated a more profound examination,
which has revealed that Wilini's booklet has to be excluded from among the possible sources. Antal Pirnát
based his proposition that Dávid and Blandrata had not made use of this work while listing their
arguments on a content analysis. This has been entirely corroborated by external circumstances as well.
The letter that Wilini attached to the manuscript of his book addressed to Ferenc Dávid, and which the
latter published in the Hungarian version of the work,33 proves beyond doubt that the Hungarian
Antitrinitarian had not known the work of the Polish physician before. Wilini tells Dávid as news that +I
have found a writing that has been pieced together in Lower Germany by some Christian scholars and
martyrs on the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ and on the imitation of the Antichrist."34 Anyway, the
epistle, dated from Warsaw on August 19, 1569, appears to be the initial document of establishing
relations, to which the Polish Anabaptist had been moved by the +consoling things" heard from Farkas
Gyulai. Pirnát's hypothesis, on the other hand, that Wilini may have felt Dávid was his man precisely on
the basis of the treatise in De regno Christi, seems somewhat less incontestable. There are no
chronological objections to that since Melius wrote to Bullinger as early as April 27, 1569 that he had
74

found more than 400 heresies in the two works of the Transylvanians, i.e. De falsa et vera and De regno
Christi.35 Thus the latter work had been ready by early 1569. At the same time all Wilini mentions is that
Farkas Gyulai has +told [him] many consoling things", which would seem to suggest that he was only
orally informed that the Transylvanians were seeking the true doctrine concerning baptism as well. Be as
it may, these chronological considerations definitely rule out the work translated into German by the
physician from Warsaw as the source since the first version of the arguments was published in 1568. That
is why it is in order to consider more attentively the relationship between Christianismi restitutio and the
Transylvanian publications.
The last pages of the chapter under the title De ordine mysteriorum regenerationis [On the order
of the rebirth of the sacraments] in Servet's work contain first a list of twenty rationes concerning the
untenability of paedobaptism, followed by a vera descriptio of twenty-five characteristic features of true
baptism.36 Their comparison with the 37 arguments of De regno Christi37 results in the following
correspondences.
75

Restitutio De regno Christi
Rationes contra Baptismi verae
paedobaptismum descriptiones
7+,8+,12+ 9
19+ 11
1+ 13
7+,8+,12+ 14
2+ 15
13+,3+ 16
3+ 18
15 19
4+ 20
6+,20+ XIII+ 21
9+,10+ 23
18+ 27
14+ XIII+ 30
XII+ 32
XIV+ 33
XXV+ 34
4+ 36
This register displays textual correspondences, and the places where the Transylvanian publication
re-formulates the given thesis of Restitutio or adopts only one element of it are marked with +. This
makes it understandable why so many scholars have believed that the arguments are independent of
Servet: only one thesis (No.19) adopts Servet's text unchanged, all the others re-formulate the original or
condense several theses of Restitutio into one. In the cases shown, however, the literal correspondence of
an expression or a clause makes it clear that the source was the famous opus of the Spanish heretic. The
above correspondences can be complemented with places where the authors condensed one or the other
explication of the chapter in Restitutio into an argument.
In the chapter De ordine mysteriorum regenerationis Servet replies to his opponents who say that
76

if it was possible for the apostles to be baptized at one time and to receive the holy spirit in another, there
is no reason why believers should not be baptized as children and partake of the gift of the holy spirit as
adults. His reply is: +But if there is no commandment for it, why should we administer baptism to them,
what would be the result? what the gain? where does God's word command this?"38 It appears that it is
along this line of reasoning that the Transylvanians theoretize, at least partially, in their first argument:
+Nowhere in the Scriptures can we find paedobaptism, it is nowhere ordered or exemplified, therefore, it
must be abandoned. This is the way the argument against the Pope prevails in the removal of purgatory.
For in the things that are necessary for our salvation, if something is not written, it need not be done. That
is what paedobaptism is said to be like, so since it is not written, it need not be done."39
Argument 37 -- +He never dared to baptize blind, dumb and deaf adults, let alone infants, since
these cannot either walk, eat, hear or speak"40 -- is reminiscent of another passage in the same chapter of
Restitutio, according to which inquiring about the faith of children is the same as dealing with blind and
deaf people. Arguments number 28 -- +Baptism is dying and being absolved with the invocation of the
name of Christ, Acts 22"41 -- and 31 -- +Baptism is shedding off filth and sins, and being buried together
[with Christ] Col.2 and 3."42 -- are unmistakably the abstract of the sub-chapter marked by the marginalia
mors [death]. On the basis of all this, it is natural to assume that the arguments formulating the usual
reasons (the faith, the repentance of the one to be baptized is necessary for baptism, etc.) in various
versions also come from Servet. These occur innumerable times in the texts concerning baptism and elsewhere
as well.
The recognition of the relationship has been rendered difficult by the fact that the authors of the
volume reduced the rationes and verae descriptiones against paedobaptism, which can be read separately
in Restitutio, into one sequence of arguments. Thus the difference between the items of positive and
polemic content having being obliterated, the former are interpolated among the latter. This condensation,
and the fact that the unit thus acquired was -- not quite precisely -- comprehensively called arguments
against paedobaptism is no coincidence at all, but is definitely in accordance with the way the
Transylvanians thought about baptismal doctrine in the stricter sense of the word.
Most of the arguments are rather undidactically formulated as syllogisms, with only the premise
given and the conclusion to be drawn by the reader. The compilation at the same time is overloaded with
a great number of repetitions. Examining together the Latin edition and the Polish version, to be
mentioned below, on the basis of the former, Konrad Górski43 thematically separates six groups:
1. The Bible never orders the baptism of children (1, 8.).
2. Children cannot fulfill the conditions the Scriptures hold necessary for receiving
baptism (2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23-24, 37.).
3. Paedobaptism disagrees with sacramentology as based on the Scriptures (9, 13, 15, 20,
22, 35, 36.).
4. Paedobaptism is challenges predestination (4).
5. Baptism of children is not confirmed by either the apostolic tradition or the opinions of
the church fathers (3, 11.).
6. The example of Christ, who was baptized at the age of thirty, also contradicts it (17.)
This division is basically correct, and can include the two arguments (23-24) that Grzegorz Pawel
omitted from his version. Unlike Górski, however, I did not include two arguments (6, 19), which are to
77

e discussed separately. More precisely, the separation of no.6 is the only difference from the Polish
scholar because no.19 cannot be found either in the Transylvanian Latin editions of 1568 or in the Polish
version. Very curiously, this is precisely the argument borrowed literally from the Spanish heretic. Its
earlier absence and its inclusion in 1569 cannot be regarded as a coincidence. For its text is the following:
+Men by rebirth will become gods, for gods are those created by Him through His word. Therefore, those
baptized as children are not gods, because they cannot hear God's word."44 This argument displays the
optimistic anthropology so characteristic of Servet, which, claiming the spirit of the divinity born with us
was still alive, so definitely pitted him against Calvin's doctrine of predestination. The Transylvanians,
although adopting the thesis, obviously did not undertake its consequences so forcefully emphasized by
Servet. This is demonstrated, on the one hand, by the fact that although making use of ratio no.20 of
Restitutio against paedobaptism, they omit the part which takes a stand for free will: +Each is condemned
for one's own sins and not on account of a servile will. Just as Christ in heaven has a free will, so we in
part have that as well, who have been enlightened by Him."45 But what is more conspicuous is that the
inclusion of this thesis did not lead to the omission of argument 4, adopted earlier, independently of
Servet: +The condemned need not be baptized, many of the infants are condemned, so we should refrain
from baptizing them lest we desecrate the sacrament in our ignorance."46 This, of course, completely
opposes Servet's theology, who identified predestination with God's providence and would thus have held
it absurd to argue against the baptism of infants in this way. Since the presence of both arguments is
rather difficult to interpret, it will be more prudent to return to this issue during the consideration of De
regno Christi, which abounds in contradictions of this kind.
All we are trying to find out now is the reason why thesis 19 was first used in the 1569 edition. It
appears that the publication of this thesis, so important for the Servetian anthropology and baptismal
doctrine, was deemed prudent only in a context in which the theological questions related to this are
discussed by the adopted texts as well, and the changes in the text and the independently formulated
interpolations would blunt the edge of the thesis. All this, however, is not more than a hypothesis since
there are no data to prove that Dávid and his followers deviated from the Helvetian conception in that
respect in 1568. The motives are also difficult to discover because baptismal debates were so much in the
foreground that the other elements of Dávid and his friends' philosophy found formulation in their works
incidentally only.
The only detail of this kind has been noted by Géza Kathona. Having compared the Catechesis
Ecclesiarum Dei of 1566 and Heidelberg Catechism, he came to the conclusion that the first 25 questions,
save number 23, had been omitted from the original by paraphrasers. This is how Kathona interprets this:
+The omission of questions 3 through 11, on the misery of man, is particularly conspicuous. Nascent
Antitrinitarianism is for the time being analyzing the dogma of Trinity and has no time as yet to critically
examine the doctrine of original sin. Its humanist optimism, however, instinctively refrains from the
ancient view of Christian theology that man is corrupt, especially avoiding that as the starting point of a
catechism."47
This, though, is nothing more but a very covert, very hidden appearance of another anthropology,
different from those of the Helvetian reformers. Especially if we remember that Melius also took part in
the rewriting, and the final version met his approval.
Registering a difference of this magnitude has been absolutely necessary, but since the 1568 versions
are in other respects completely identical with the 1569 edition, it is logical to interpret the compilation
on the basis of the latter, where the arguments appear in the company of other texts by Servet concerned
with baptism. This procedure is also supported by the fact that no Antitrinitarian utterance on this
issue in the time between contained new elements. Around the middle of 1568 Melius and his friends
published their theses for the dispute at Várad on August 22, 1568. This opus is still latent but we have
the reply by Dávid and his followers, the often mentioned Refutatio propositionum Petri Melii, in which
they printed the arguments of Melius to be refuted. At this point, arguments XX through XXII are
78

interesting. Number XX declares that everyone must be baptized, whether adult or child, of whatever age
or rank, who has been offered to the church and accepts the true faith, then adds: +...and we condemn the
fury of the Anabaptists along with the new Catabaptists. For Christ ordered that we should teach and
baptize everyone".48 XXI condemns polygamy, and XXII asserts the significance of the marital vow with
reference to the Old Testament.
Following the well-known tactics, Dávid does not discuss the latter two because he regards those
as lies. However, he declares about baptism: +We also assert with the holy spirit and the catholic church
that those who have received instruction on the true knowledge of the Father God and His Son, Jesus
Christ, are to be baptized. For instruction, according to Christ's precept, must precede baptism. And as to
what Melius says, i.e. that infants receive instruction from the holy Spirit through inner enlightening, we
answer first that Melius has only dreamed that because justification takes the faith of the heart, salvation
the confession of the mouth. So when they are able to confess their faith with their own mouths, then we
accept that they [children] are ready to receive the external signs [of the sacrament]."49 This reasoning
also can be found nearly word for word in Arguments 12 and 16.
The most striking fact in connection with the adoption of the texts perhaps is that the authors,
when it came to baptismal doctrine in the strict sense of the word, did not turn to the relevant chapter --
De baptismi efficacia [On the efficacy of baptism] -- of Restitutio, but depended on the chapter entitled
De ordine mysteriorum regenerationis, where it is the polemics against paedobaptism that dominates
rather than the positive doctrine. The accent on this chapter meant a the same time that the editors broke
up the logic of the original work. For Servet describes the mysteries of rebirth as based on the theoretical
inferences of previous sections, and this part can be regarded as the didactic summary of what has gone
before. As a result of the change in the order, the earlier explications have a more inferior role in the first
place in the Gyulafehérvár edition, which is enhanced by the fact that none of the books used as sources
are borrowed completely but pieces are merely gleaned from them. Since Kot's50 table contains two
errors, the correct correspondences are given below:
De circumcisione vera, cum reliquis
Christi et Antichristi mysteriis,
omnibus iam completis
De ordine mysteriorum regenerationis
De circumcisione vera
79
De regno Christi
Restitutio De Paedobaptismo. Pars tertia
417-431 KK4-NN3
431-438 OO1-PP2
573-575 PP2-PP4
411-416 PP4-QQ1
438-446 QQ1-SS2

De ordine mysteriorum (Conclusio)
576 SS2
Thus there was a definitely discernible tendency during the adoption of the text which preferred
anti-paedobaptism to the formulation of a positive doctrine of baptism. As we shall see, this was partly
due to an aversion to the specially Servetian doctrine, but also partly to the fact that the philosophy of the
Transylvanians, despite approaching towards Anabaptism, had preserved something of the tendency to
avoid baptismal debates. The sixth argument, which is independent of Servet, is notably intriguing in that
respect: +Forcing people to baptize infants is attributing more to the sacrament than its due, and also
agreeing with the view of the Pope, who teaches that no one can be saved without baptism. Therefore, let
us not make haste audaciously."51
It seems logical that we compare this with Item 24 of the table containing the differences and
correspondences (Appendix II). In the context quoted Servet is trying to demonstrate that faith must
precede baptism, which he regards as proved by the fact that Paul had been sent not to baptize but to
preach the gospel. The editors of De regno Christi interpolated a clause -- et quia catechismus ad salutem
sufficere poterat [and since catechism can be sufficient for salvation] -- which, if does not exactly neglect
baptism, still diminishes its significance to some extent. And in a certain respect the third argument also
belongs here as it also says that Paul did not baptize. Although Argument 6 just quoted objects only to
people being forced to baptize children, it goes on to say that it is Popery to teach that no one can be
saved without baptism. On the strength of this one might think that one of the reasons of passing over the
chapter De baptismi efficacia was that Servet there made a categorical distinction between the status of
the believers who have partaken of the sacrament of baptism and of those who have missed that. And to
anyone who would find the resulting difference between two catechumens, one baptized, the other not,
out of proportion, he replies that this difference was not bigger than that between the statuses of two
heathens or Jews of a similar fate. Although the latter, according to Servet's doctrine of justification,
cannot be excluded completely from the circle of those to be saved, as they will be merely weighed at the
last judgement while Christians will be judges themselves on the right side of Christ, still there is a
detectable difference between this attitude and that of Argument 6, which wishes to mitigate baptismal
debates. It would seem that the Transylvanians would not give up this position they had held so long as
we have seen, not even at the expense of being inconsistent. For the former reasoning concerning
catechumens was nevertheless included in De regno Christi from the chapter De ordine mysteriorum
regenerationis of Restitutio. The inconsistency is probably intentional: what we have here is the presence
of a pluralistic view that, although accepting the antibiblical nature of paedobaptism, still is too careful to
attribute the issue too much significance.
Another reason for disregard of the chapter De baptismi efficacia may have been that the editors
of the Transylvanian opus did not accept Servet's teaching on the relationship of internal and external
baptism, which definitely was at odds with Helvetian views. For him baptismus aquae [baptism of the
water] is not merely the symbol of baptismus spiritus [baptism of the soul], that is to say, the actual
immersion in the water of baptism does not merely symbolize one's inner purification. Thus, baptism with
water is not the sign of spiritual regeneration, of an event that has occurred before, but partaking,
simultaneously with the baptism itself, of the gift of spiritus [soul] and aqua [water]. He lists the Old
Testament types of baptism as evidence: Noah was saved not only because he believed but because he
boarded the ark following the guidance of the Lord; Elisha could recover the Syrian Naaman of his
leprosy not only on account of the latter's faith, but also because he immersed himself seven times in the
Jordan. And quoting Joshua 4:14 -- +On that day the Lord magnified Joshua in the sight of all Israel" --
he repeats the expression +on that day" as many as three times in a passionate exclamation not unusual in
his case.
80

He is obviously at odds with the Helvetian views when he writes that they who attribute no more
importance to baptism than the Jews do to circumcision, which was merely a signum [sign], do not know
the kingdom of Christ. On the other hand, the neglect of the chapter evidently had christological reasons
because an powerful element of the Spaniard's baptismal doctrine, namely that the faithful is united with
Christ's heavenly body in the sacrament, was unacceptable for them. Thus Servet's doctrine was unique
among Anabaptist views,52 reminiscent of the reasoning of the Swiss in the repudiation of paedobaptism
only. For the former usually attacked the Calvinists for having degraded baptism to the status of
circumcision with paedobaptism: with regards to the relationship between the sign and the signed their
views were close to those of the reformers. The data available so far shows that Dávid in that respect was
mostly under the influence of Bullinger and therefore, understandably, was hesitant towards the views of
Servet, rather unusual among the Anabaptists as well.
While in this case it was the specific features of Servet's theology that the Transylvanians avoided,
there are other cases where a restraint in a more general sense concerning Anabaptism can be perceived.
In that respect the way the baptism of St. John the Baptist is interpreted by the Antitrinitarian opus is very
revealing and important. This had been one of the salient problems already in the first debates between
the Swiss Anabaptists and the reformers. The latter, holding that baptism is unified, denied that on the basis
of Jn.1:26 -- +I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not" -- the baptism
of St. John the Baptist and that of the church could be rigidly separated. Although they did not believe
either that the former was the culmination, still they wished to emphasize unity and continuity.
Servet firmly and unambiguously takes a stand for the Anabaptists in Restitutio. He points out at several
places that the baptism of St. John the Baptist was merely a praeparatio ad futurum [preparation for the
future], and referring to Acts 19:4-5, the favourite passage of the Anabaptists, claims that those who were
baptized by him had to do it again. [The reformers, incidentally, interpreted Acts 19:5 -- +When they
heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" -- that it was not a (re)baptism but a
teaching.]
The editors of the Gyulafehérvár opus did not go along with this view. There is a fairly perceptible
tendency which tries to avoid focussing on the issue. Let us compare Argument 27 in the treatise of De
regno Christi with Servet's 18th ratio:
+He who cannot be prepared by
John, cannot be called to Christ. As the
harbinger preceded Christ preparing the
way, so he precedes another Christian.
John the Baptist was really a teacher."53
+He who cannot be prepared by John, should
not be called to Christ."54
The disregard of the expression +vere catechizans erat Ioannes Baptista" [John the Baptist was
really a teacher] at this place is really meaningful, completely in accordance with the textual omissions
under items 3 and 25 in the table in Appendix II. The difference under item 3 is precisely apparent in the
fact that although both texts place St. John the Baptist under the Law, De regno Christi ignores its
consequence for baptismal doctrine. And what the 25th difference neglects to adopt is just the typically
Anabaptist reasoning quoted above.
Nor can Arguments 3 and 10 of De regno Christi, independent of Servet, be ignored in this respect;
these arguments place side by side, without any apparent restriction, those baptized by Christ
and/or John the Baptist. +Paul exulted and thanked God that he had baptized none but Caius, Crispus and
the household of Stephanas 1Cor.1. This shows how necessary paedobaptism is, and also that Christ
never baptized adults, nor John the Baptist infants,"55 and +There is no baptism without penitence: infants
81

cannot do penitence. Thus Jn.2 and Acts 2. Of course, John the Baptist also baptized those who had
confessed their sins: Mk.1."56
It would seem that it is in these changes that the efforts of the editors to mitigate the compact
Anabaptism of the original is most visible. But the +upgrading" of St. John the Baptist has a further
consequence. One reason the reformers in their debate with the Anabaptists insisted on having the
baptism they gave recognized as +fully legal" was that it meant an important starting point in another
serious issue: the assessment of the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. For if they
regarded John's baptism as the integral part of their sacramentology, they could adapt the entire Old
Testament -- easily supported by biblical passages -- more organically into their theology. Their view,
that there is one covenant realized in different ways (i.e. testaments) in the various phases of salvation
history, is thus most organically related to the recognition of the baptism of St. John the Baptist, indeed,
this is what most aptly symbolizes the unity of the Old and New Testament. As it was shown during the
consideration of Rövid útmutatás and the relevant chapter of De falsa et vera, the Transylvanian
Antitrinitarians basically understood the relation of the Old and New Testaments as the Anabaptists did.
But again, the fact that by avoiding the polemic concerning the baptism of St. John the Baptist their view
was worded in a less pointed form reflected the caution of Anabaptist tendencies and the diminishing of
their distance from the reformers. They refrained from intensifying this issue even at the price of their
own position becoming more precarious and more heterogeneous. (These contradictions of their theology
of course never came to the surface because they joined real debates with their opponents exclusively on
questions of christology.)
Among the more strictly theoretical aspects of the baptismal doctrine formulated in De regno
Christi there is another outstanding tendency, namely the one that can be called the historicizing of antipaedobaptism.
This will be more clear when ratio 19 of Restitutio and Argument 11 of De regno Christi
are placed side by side:
+What we clearly learn from
Trismegistus' book on regeneration and
from the Sibylline oracles is that baptism
is for adults only: who have washed off
their past sins with the water of eternal
spring, have been reborn and gained full
redemption, and will not give in to the
unutterably bad morals of the world.
In her Eighth Book Sibyl teaches
the same that she did in the First: that
those to be baptized must receive
instruction first: That they should walk
the straight path, and clean their souls of
sins, they should wash their bodies with
water so that the reborn never again sin
against the law."57
+Nazienzenus in his speech on baptism holds it
desirable that baptism be postponed till the children can
answer something concerning their faith. Trismegistus
and the Sibyls teach that baptism is for adults only.
Musculus Dusanus in the letter to Rome (fol. 430)
holds it desirable that the faithful bring in their children
to receive the sacrament of the initiation neither too
anxiously, nor too negligently, neither before nor after
the proper time, and condemns anxious haste thereby
obliterating the necessity that others falsely invent, and
allowing freedom. Augustine also writes in his fourth
book against the Donatists that the baptism of infants
has not been prescribed by councils; and this started
only in the days of Origen, which makes it clear that the
church has invented the sacrament of confirmation only
because the invention of paedobaptism has been found
suspicious."58
The Platonic Servet refers to Hermes Trismegistus and the Sibyllic books as authorities, indeed,
he quotes from the latter. Dávid and his colleagues omit the quotation since the hermetic tradition has the
value of a mere historical source for them. They do not dedicate a whole argument to them, but mention
them in a generous historical survey from the church fathers through Musculus.
82

The addition by Dávid and Blandrata is stimulating from other aspects as well. Servet's Restitutio
does not contain a separate discussion on how the Antichrist has corrupted the pure baptismal doctrine of
the old church, but he clearly believes that the true doctrine was abandoned with Constantine's turn. The
argument just quoted from the Transylvanian opus would seem to suggest that the authors did not accept
this conception in all respects. There is no clear-cut demarcation here either since the parts adopted
unchanged from Restitutio carry the Servetian scheme of ecclesiastic history into the work. Still, it is
worth noting that according to Argument 11, the line of the authors who did not accept the baptism of
adults goes back to Saint Augustine in time. Thus the vision of the one fall is moderated by the idea of
gradual corruption even if the entire work leaves the reader with the impression that the opponents of the
baptism of adults, according to the authors, are fighting rear-guard battles. For this cavalier treatment of
the tradition should be seen as related to Chapter Two of Book I of De falsa et vera and to the tendency of
the whole book where, by listing the long line of testes veritatis, they wished to project their own
christology back onto earlier authors. Just as their efforts there were defending them not merely from the
usual charge that they were trying to smuggle something entirely new, something totally alien from
Christianity into the church of Christ, so here there was also more than that to it, namely, that by
historicizing their view -- and especially since that view was not Anabaptist but anti-paedobaptist -- they
were also trying to avoid locking up themselves, or being locked up, as a sect.
From the point of view of the +deviation" from Servet, Argument 25 is still noteworthy: +Those
are really called Brethren who can drink from the same glass. But infants cannot do that. Ergo."59 This is
to be highlighted because this is the only argument that presupposes some communal determination of
baptism. Servet makes no reference, even in such an obscure form, to the connection between baptism
and the church. This is worth mentioning because for most of the Anabaptists (the Swiss, Hubmaier,
Marbeck) true baptism is the gate to the church, i.e. leads the baptized to the congregation, which is the
place where salvation history assumes a concrete form in this world. It is to be noted that here, unlike in
Servet, the communal, congregational subject is given a glimpse at least. For according to Williams'
clever remark, the Spanish individualist free thinker was the only member of his own church, that is to
say, his view is dominated by a spiritualist notion of the church.60
The modifications registered so far touched the theoretical side of the Anabaptist doctrine of
baptism formulated by Servet, though the changes that are the results of discussing the practical problems
issuing therefrom are no less inspiring. The theses of the Transylvanians also include the statement that
baptism is the washing off of the body with water. They, however, must have interpreted this first of all
spiritually, just as they drew no conclusions from the thesis +baptism is the bath of rebirth..." regarding
the administration of the sacrament. Not quite like Servet, one must say, for Restitutio quite specifically
orders the person to be baptized to step into the water and the water to be poured on his head from above:
+the proper meaning of the verb ß...i..iv is to immerse; just as the dyer of textiles, called »baptistes«, puts
the textile into the water and pours water on it from above. In the same way, when we are baptized, we
also step into the water and the baptist pours water on us from above. Thus we are renewed and washed
off from above so that we can ascend to heaven upon the face of the waters."61
De regno Christi does not adopt even these instructions from the chapter De baptismi efficacia,
nor did the theses contain any guidelines as to the way the sacrament should be administered. Just as they
avoid the question of when exactly is one to be baptized. The position of Restitutio is clear and unambiguous
on this issue. Servet believes that one has to be completely mature to partake of the regenerative
effect of baptism, and in that respect the example of Christ is to be followed. Also, the Old Testament
types clearly argue for the age of 30: just as the first Adam was born at that age, so shall we be reborn by
the second at the same age; David was anointed in his kingship at 30, Joseph was of the same age when
he was freed from the prison in Egypt, and so on.
Item 31 of Appendix II clearly shows that the Transylvanians did not follow Servet in that respect.
Christ, baptized at 30, does not teach them to wait till one reaches that age. They have to wait only until
83

they can make a confession about Christ. Argument 17 uses similar wording: +Christ was baptized at the
age of thirty, and it is an example for us that whenever the apostles baptized, they never mentioned infants."62
Here the apostles are already placed next to Christ's example, and the augmented exemplary
argues not for the age of 30 but is a warning against baptizing children. They say nothing as to when is
the right time, when the believer becomes spiritually mature for the reception of the sacraments. They
probably regarded this as an issue of secondary importance, not necessary to take a position about.
Obviously, the idea must have been that children should be instructed from the beginning in the
foundations of the Christian faith by pious parents, and whenever they understand the instruction and are
able to prove it viva voce, they can be baptized. Thus the Transylvanians were against the baptism of
infants, but raised no objection against the baptism of little children who could speak, if they were satisfied
that the children have understood the basics of faith.
Item 25 of the table registering the differences deserves a closer scrutiny in another respect. Here
they borrow the meaning of Servet's text, and the reason it is reformulated is probably their wish to more
precisely express their christological position. That is to say, they hold as their source does that baptism in
the name of the trinite God would be unacceptable even if they acknowledged that the faith of someone
else (parents or church) is sufficient for baptism. However, they do not continue to adopt the anaphoric
sentences containing the consequences, that is to say they do not declare expressis verbis that those
baptized earlier should be baptized again. This indicates that the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians were
reluctant to openly preach rebaptism. There is no doubt that their readers could draw this conclusion
themselves, but there is a difference between openly uttering a conclusion or leaving it unsaid.
A comparison of the anti-paedobaptist arguments and the passages of De regno Christi with
Servet's Restitutio clearly demonstrates that Dávid and Blandrata did not mechanically pick sections from
the work of the Spanish heretic. Their changes suggest two main tendencies. On the one hand, they
disregarded the too individual and extreme features of Servet's views, such as the mystical overestimation
of the physical process, of immersion, the rigorous insistence on baptism at the age of thirty. On the other
hand, they attempted to dilute the concentrated Anabaptism of the original. This can be seen in the
interpretation of the baptism of St. John the Baptist, which deviates from the Anabaptists and is closer to
the reformers, in their avoiding to openly preach rebaptism and, especially in the fact that even if they
discuss dogmas in a detail unprecedented with them, they do not completely give up their earlier opinion
that baptismal debates are of secondary importance. Thus, De regno Christi from 1569 is the record of a
rather amorphous view, allowing several interpretations: it can have a more strictly Anabaptist reading,
which rigorously sticks to the conclusions, and another, which remains on the level of a looser antipaedobaptism
and treats that even as a theoretical problem. In that respect, the more objective, less
pointed nature of the arguments and texts -- compared to other passages of De regno Christi -- deserves
mentioning.
As we have seen, significant omissions, changes, rearrangements were necessary to turn Restitutio
into such an amorphously anti-paedobaptist work. It is clear from all this that the Transylvanians
completely exhausted Servet's work from this aspect. That is why the independently formulated final lines
of Chapter 12 of De regno Christi should be interpreted differently from the way they have been by
Stanislaw Kot.63 For the Polish scholar believes that with the closing sentence promising another treatise
on baptism and the Lord's supper, the Transylvanians were announcing the publication of further chapters
from Restitutio. Even concentrating now exclusively on the issue of baptism, it would be hard to say what
exactly the editors of the opus had in mind. It would be safe to say, however, that they were not planning
the publication of the now disregarded texts of Restitutio, because the individual features of the baptismal
doctrine elaborated in those were problematic for a position even more decidedly Anabaptist than the
present one.
The above interpretation of the treatise in De regno Christi and/or of the theses containing its
main message is somewhat corroborated by a comparison with the Polish version already mentioned. The
84

Polish opus was published under the title Krótkie dowody, kthore Dziecinny Krzest od ludzi przeciwnych
Bogu wymyslonych zbiiaia [Brief proofs attacking the paedobaptism invented by godless people], and
although neither the author's name nor the year of printing are given, Polish scholarship, after the
researches of Konrad Górski,64 dates it at 1568 and regards Grzegorz Pawel as its author. By comparing
the two versions, Górski has found that Grzegorz Pawel reduced the number of arguments to 34 by
omitting Arguments 23 and 24. (The Polish scholar followed the numbering of Brevis enarratio, the
arguments in question are numbers 24 and 25 in De regno Christi.) It is difficult to see the motives for the
omissions. Górski contends that these arguments, not relying on biblical passages, were less convincing
for Grzegorz Pawel. It is, however, at least inconsistent that the Polish Antitrinitarian at the same time
adopts other arguments (e.g. 13 and 35) that do not refer to any biblical place either, nor are they
rephrased parts of the Scripture.
Thus, I cannot interpret the omission of these two arguments. The Polish translator did not even
have to face Argument 19 of the treatise in De regno Christi since in all probability he was working with
a version that did not contain it. Górski believes this version was Brevis enarratio. Nor can it be ruled out,
however, that Grzegorz Pawel worked on the basis of Literae convocatoriae. For Blandrata wrote in his
letter to the Poles, dated at Segesvár, January 27, 1568, that he had sent forty copies of the letter of invitation
to the dispute planned at Torda but later held at Gyulafehérvár by way of Valentinus, senior at Lublin
(Walenty Krawiec, according to the Polish literature on the subject).65 Grzegorz might have become
familiar with the arguments in that opus. Since the two versions are identical, this is an irrelevant
observation with respect to contents. Yet, it is not entirely insignificant since it bolsters the evidence that
supports 1568 as the publication year of the Polish work. If Grzegorz Pawel knew the Latin arguments as
early as January 1568, he simply had more time to paraphrase and print them than if he first had seen
them in summer 1568.
Curiously, this time the Polish author used the theses of the Transylvanians only, and did not augment
them with the help of Restitutio. If, however, Blandrata's purpose was to cool the enthusiastic
preacher and have his zeal stop at the critique of paedobaptism, he failed. For Grzegorz Pawel would not
be tamed and went on to modify the text the way he saw best. While comparing the two versions, Górski
emphasizes in the first place that the Polish work, made with a more popular purpose, was more didactic
and more polemic than the original. Let us add, that the vernacular of the Polish version in itself meant
that it was more forceful as propaganda, which was enhanced by the fact that it was published as a
separate book and not in the appendix of some other work. Inspired by Górski's views, let us give some
observations below that may attest to more than just a stronger purpose of propaganda.
Górski has also noted that Argument 11 is much more biblical in the Polish version, and the
translation does not deem necessary to fortify its view with other authorities. After a comparison of the
versions in Restitutio and in De regno Christi, it will be particularly inspiring to see the third member of
the series: +True and good baptism is shown clearly not only by the Scripture but also by some of the
Papal doctors who lived in the initial and somewhat purer age (whom we do not care about because we
are content with the Father dwelling in heaven, and our Master, whom He sent us, Christ), although
murmured through their teeth only, contradicting themselves with their usual inconsistency and thus
spoiling it all. Among other things Augustine writes in his fourth book against the Donatists that
paedobaptism was not decided for by the council but started during Origen. The reason the Papal church
invented the silly confirmation was that they had doubts about the perfection of paedobaptism. This
should be sufficient for the wise and the alert."66
There is more to note here than the fact that Grzegorz Pawel mentions Augustine only. It is more
important that while the anti-paedobaptist position made it possible in the Latin version to interpret the
same element in a positive way, even as being part of their traditions, the polemic notes blunt the edge of
the mentioning. (Incidentally, a similar polemic note addressed to Augustine, independent of the Latin,
can be read in Argument 9 of the Polish version.) The omissions will be especially revealing if Restitutio,
85

the works of the Transylvanians and the Polish text are considered at the same time. The Transylvanians
already gave up textually quoting Hermes Trismegistus, and Grzegorz Pawel does not even mention his
name. Thus the father of hermetic philosophy is gradually washed out of these writings on infant baptism.
The text of the Polish version seems to corroborate to some extent all we said about the baptism of
St. John the Baptist while interpreting the arguments. For it is unmistakable that the Polish author
consistently disregards the passages that mention it in the Latin text. In Argument 10 he simply omits it,
in 24 (27 in the Latin) he avoids it by referring to internal baptism:
+He who cannot be prepared by
John, should not be called to Christ."67
+No one can join Christ who has not been baptized
internally first."68
But he chose the most interesting solution in translating the third argument into Polish. This is
how the concluding part of the argument goes in the Latin and in the Polish versions:
"...and also that Christ never
baptized adults, nor John the Baptist
infants."69
+...Christ baptized no one of the adults. And
John, who had been sent for this along with others,
baptized none of the infants unable to speak."70
The Polish text mentions John in the company of others, so the passage may rather refer to John
the apostle, who along with his fellow apostles was given the task to baptize all the nations.
It is also conspicuous, although the Polish author does not discuss in detail the way of administering
the sacrament, that some remarks make it quite clear that true baptism meant immersio for
Grzegorz Pawel. Nurzanie, the Polish equivalent of the term occurs in Argument 16, only to reoccur in
Argument 25.
The comparison of the Latin arguments, published several times by the Transylvanians, and the
Polish versions demonstrates very well the relative unity, but also the difference, of the two significant
Antitrinitarian movements. There was definitely a unity, even with regard to baptism, since Grzegorz
Pawel was relying on the theses elaborated by the Transylvanians, and he could accept the mostly
theoretical anti-paedobaptism of the Transylvanians as a minimal program. The textual comparison,
however, has revealed the differences as well: the Polish Brethren were not content with the theoretical
critique of paedobaptism, and their views were more coherently Anabaptist. Thus the polemic tone of the
Polish version has not only the individual mentality and fanatism of Grzegorz Pawel behind it, but a
difference of doctrines as well. This fanatical obsession, and the difference between the atmosphere of the
two works is perhaps best shown by the dissimilarity of the closing argument, where the Polish
Antitrinitarian completely leaves the Latin to conclude his work a more apt and more militant thesis:
+He never dared to baptize blind,
dumb and deaf adults, let alone infants,
since these cannot either walk, eat, hear
or speak."71
+Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom.14:23.
Baptism of children is such, therefore it is a sin and
curse with God."72
86

The Transylvanian reinterpretation of a Flemish Anabatist opus
In the year 1570 the baptismal doctrine of the Transylvanians was improved with new elements,
although the evidence for it is rather fragmentary. Still, it is a fact that Alexander Wilini, the leader of the
Anabaptists in Warsaw wrote a letter to Ferenc Dávid in 1569, enclosing a work of Anabaptist spirit,
which he had translated into German from Flemish. He asked Ferenc Dávid to print the opus in
Transylvania and then send them copies since they were unable to have access to a printing shop. His
request was fulfilled as the work entitled Büchlein über die wahrhaftige christliche Taufe73 was published
at Kolozsvár in 1570, and even its Hungarian translation74 came out in the same year.
There are a number of circumstances that render the study of this problem rather difficult. All we
have of the German work now is fragments soaked out from various book covers, and it is difficult to
decide from those whether the outlook of the opus was Antitrinitarian. On the other hand, the Hungarian
version was published anonymously, leaving the identity of the translator unknown. Although Antal
Pirnát75 arrays a number of significant stylistic arguments for the authorship of Ferenc Dávid, none of
them is decisive. The greatest problem of all, however, is that so far no one has been able to identify the
Flemish original that Wilini refers to in his letter and whose Hungarian translation we know from the
Hungarian edition of the opus.76
Thus it would seem proper to be more careful with the interpretation and try to concentrate
primarily on the description of the Hungarian text.
The book is a polemic against paedobaptism in the form of a dialogue between the master and the
pupil, who is studying to be an Anabaptist preacher. The starting point of the conversation is the anguish
of the pupil, who sees that pious preachers are slandered by both the Catholics and the Protestants. This
disheartens him so much that he is considering giving up studying and becoming a shoemaker. Of course,
by the end of the work he has been convinced of the impossibility of the slanders and happily undertakes
the calling of a preacher. Thus the first part of the work, divided into five chapters, is concerned with the
accusations. It elaborates most vividly that the Anabaptists do not cause unrest and turmoil. There were
some in the town of Münster, it is true, who caused turmoil and chaos, but these were evil people not to
be mistaken for true Anabaptists, who are pious and saintly people, obeying the magistrates. In Chapter
Two the master discusses true baptism, while in the third he explains the evil nature of paedobaptism,
invented by the Pope. Chapter Four refutes the alleged evidence that their opponents use against true
knowledge. Finally, Chapter Five discusses the issue of whether it is necessary to rebaptize those once
already baptized by the Papists or the Protestants.
This short outline will have shown that the subjects the dialogue discusses have mostly been
treated by the Transylvanians in their earlier opus. There are, at the same time, important differences. On
the one hand, the work was published in German and Hungarian, which guaranteed a much wider range
of propaganda. On the other, the work could expect a wider reading public on account of its genre. After a
collection of not very didactic arguments and a rather abstract treatise, the fact itself that the opus was a
dialogue made it easier to read, especially as its intonation is effective and clever, though in other respects
it is just as tiresome and lengthy as the average specimens of the genre.
There are, however, a number of new elements in a doctrinal respect as well. The view of
ecclesiastical history emerging from the words of the master is more simplistic than that in De falsa et
vera or the earlier works by Ferenc Dávid. The master holds that the church was corrupted by the fact that
Pope Victor introduced paedobaptism in 193 AD. Thus the corruption took place at once, as it were, and
87

the further mysteries of the Antichrist are all the consequences of the corruption of true baptism.
Accordingly, Könyvecske az igaz keresztyéni keresztségral [Booklet on true Christian baptism] is rather
miserly when it comes to treating the ecclesiastical tradition. While analyzing the Anabaptist arguments
above, I specially highlighted the eleventh for this clearly indicated that the Transylvanians did not refrain
from referring to even Papist doctors if they found their arguments adequate. Könyvecske does not show
any trace of that since the conception suggests that the Antichrist triumphed completely with the measure
of Pope Victor. The difference between Ferenc Dávid's earlier statements and Könyvecske is even more
accentuated with regard to the relations with the reformers. While earlier there was a certain elasticity,
now it is definitely an opposition. The master several times formulates very vividly that he regards
Catholics and those who follow the gospel in appearance only as outcast by the son of God from His
kingdom. As much as it can be established on the basis of the German fragment, there is an elaborate
terminology even in that for denoting the equally despised Catholics and Protestants: Bapstischen and/or
Bepstler. The Hungarian version uses the Hungarian equivalents of these very consistently, which
indicates a significant change of attitude compared to an earlier state of things.
However, the most exciting novelty of Könyvecske is that it takes a stance for rebaptism. The
master sees no true baptism either among Catholics or among +evangelic doctors", thus those coming to
them have to be baptized. The dialogue, referring to the differing interpretations of Acts.19:4-5, so
important in the debates of the Anabaptists, convinces the pupil that this passage is +turned inside out" by
the +evangelic doctors". The pupil confesses that as a child he was baptized by Lutherans and wants to
know if it is still valid. The answer is firmly in the negative and although the pupil argues that it will
annoy many people, he cannot mitigate the fanatism of the master.
This doctrinaire rigidity lets up only when the master is obliged to admit the necessity of adapting
to circumstances. For in the concluding part of the work he has to concede that there might be
emergencies in which they must resign from baptizing the adults who have joined them. The last
sentences suggest something similar. The master invites the pupil to follow him but this invitation
contains a restriction as well. +Rallying under God's banner let us assume His sign according to His
sacred order and the acts and examples of the Apostles, if possible"77 [italics mine -- M.B.]. It is again
impossible to decide in this case whether this restriction was there in the original as well. This cannot be
ruled out since, especially after Münster, flexible responsiveness became more and more the order of the
day among Anabaptists. Still, it is conspicuous that this Nicodemic adjustability gets no theological
foundation at all and is presented merely as practical necessity.
Thus it is evident that Könyvecske enriched the ideology of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians with
a number of new elements in several respects.
The causes of this change will be considered during the discussion of socio-ethical views. Here let
it suffice to mention only that the events in Poland also played a role. It means that by the end of the
1560s, the Anabaptist propaganda among the Antitrinitarians there had led to the +experiment at Raków".
Under such circumstances, the Transylvanians, in order to keep up, were obliged to leave their so far antipaedobaptist
position. Of course, the publication of the opus was ambiguous in that respect since its firm
condemnation of the Anabaptists of Münster can also be interpreted as a criticism of another marching
out of the world.
Of course, it would facilitate the interpretation of the work if we had data on its contemporary
readings and especially on whether its publication caused any changes in the activity of the
Transylvanians. Unfortunately, the available information is not sufficient to determine whether the theoretical
confirmation of rebaptism was followed up by practical steps as well. It is not known what priest
Miklós preached, whose case was on the agenda of the January 3, 1570 session of the Kolozsvár council.
There the mayor of the town was charged to +censure [priest Miklós] according to the wish of the
reverend parson, that he be quiet in teaching on baptism until the synod and whatever that will decide, he
88

also adhere to it."78 It is also well-known that the national assembly summoned for January 1, 1570
passed an act, unusual at the time, against the +heresies recently arisen".79 The fact that Könyvecske could
be published after, and despite, all this probably means that Dávid had been able to separate the opus
from these, or at least to have it accepted that the views formulated in Könyvecske did not significantly
differ from the principles articulated earlier.
It would seem, however, that Könyvecske, which represents concentrated Anabaptism, remained
an episode only in the history of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism. It is well-known that the radical
thinkers of the 1570s (Palaeologus, Sommer) spectacularly pushed the Anabaptist tradition aside, but the
differences are also clearly perceptible if we accentuate the elements that were persistently present in the
ideology of the Polish ecclesia minor and the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians. It has been shown above that
rebaptism had been spreading, if slowly, in Poland from the mid-1560s, indeed, there were periods when
the passionate debates on that issue pushed even questions of christology into the background. It is
conspicuous that baptismal doctrine was never a central issue in Transylvania. The crucially important
second religious dispute at Gyulafehérvár is particularly intriguing in that respect. The theses for the
debate compiled by Dávid and his friends included, as we have seen, the 36 arguments against
paedobaptism, but there is no sign of the issue ever being discussed. One might even say that the
differences of opinion seen here played a marginal role only. The reason that one may still be reluctant to
give it undue emphasis is the fact of ecclesiastical and scientific history that it has not been properly
articulated so far that the Calvinist and the Antitrinitarian positions differed also in this respect. Thus it
should be pointed out that there was a minimal program -- anti-paedobaptism -- that upheld the relative
unity of Hungarian Antitrinitarianism and the Polish ecclesia minor in that respect as well.
89

1. Az Debreczenbe öszve gyült... praedikatoroknac... vallasoc... Described in RMNY 229.
2. Argumenta quibus paedobaptismus impetitur in: Literae convocatoriae... ad synodum
Thordanam Alba Juliae [1568].
3. +Quod de Polygamia additum est, deque Pedobaptismo, nescimus, an demigrandi
nominis sint addita, nec ne: cum enim de pluribus usoribus, aut infantibus baptizendis, nec
publice, nec privatim unquam disceptatum, cur ea in dubium vertatis, satis mirari non possumus."
Literae convocatoriae A3r.
4. +... quia Deus per vos nos cogit, argumenta aliquot quae Paedobaptismum impugnare
videntur asseruimus, cupientes Ecclesiarum iudicia audire, et meliora docentibus obtemperare."
Literae convocatoriae A3r.
5. +Byl tez na ten synod przyniesiony list od zborów siedmiogrodzkiej ziemie, pisany do
naszych zborów od tych, którzy z nimi jedno rozumienie mieli o jednym Panu Bogu, Ojcu Pana
Naszego Jezusa Chrystusa. W którym liscie napominaja nasze, aby zborów nie rozrywali dla
krztu, ukazujac szeroce wiela racyj, iz nam krzest nie pomaga do zbawienia nic, a jesli do
zbudowania pomaga, tedy tak go trzymac, zeby budowanie domu Bozego szlo, a nie rozwalenie
abo rozerwanie. Ukazali i to wiela racyj, iz ta ceremonija krzytu onym tylko wiekom dawnym
sluzyla, przez która byli initiati, tak z zydostwa, jako z poganstwa, ludzie do Pana Jezusa
Chrystusa przystawajacy, napominajac nasze do nieskapliwosci i znaszania te rzecz
rozumiejacych. To, iz nie przez wlasnego ich posla, ale per tertias personas przyniesiono, tedy im
nie odpisano na ten czas, bo tez tam na synodzie wiecej ich bylo w powadze, którzy o krzcie
rózno od Siedmiogrodzon rózne rozumieli." Akta synodów II. 200.
6. +Postquam hanc controversiam a Polonis et Litvanis acriter agitari Ecclesiae
Transylvanicae acceperunt, aliquoties datis literis eosdem monuerunt, ne contentiones et rixas de
hac re traherent, quae minus illis necessaria visa, quasi antiquis illis temporibus et conversis ex
Judaeis, vel gentibus ad Christum conveniens, quod prolixo scripto tunc docuerunt, in quo et
Judaizantis spiritus indicia apparuere. Questi sunt inter alia baptismi necessitatem salutis alligari,
et ex baptismo novum veluti servatorem fieri, ac idolum aeneo illi serpenti simile: adeoque qui
hoc faciant, prinde facere quam si quis arcam Noachi, vel jugum Jeremiae, vel sagittas Regis
Johasi querere et captare velit. Ad haec prolixe docent baptismum primordii Christinismi,
conversionis gentium et miraculorum secutorum respectu ut Agni Paschalis sanguinem et aenei
serpentis conspectum non posterioribus convenire, cum et ipsi Apostoli liberos alterutro parentum
fidelium natos pro sanctis judicarint, et res ipsa doceat, liberos utroque parente Christiano natos et
in religionis Christianae pietate educatos, sanctos et fideles, ac minime, etsi baptizati non fuerint,
perituros esse: tum sublato errore de peccato originali, consectarium ejus ablutionem scil. ejus per
baptismi lavacrum, tolli." Stanislaw LUBIENIECKI: Historia reformationis polonicae. Freistadii
1685. (Facsimile edition: Warsaw 1971.) 189--190.
7. Lech SZCZUCKI: Marcin Czechowic (1532--1613). Studium z dziejów
antytrynitaryzmu poslkiego XVI wieku. Warszawa 1964. 62--63. -- IDEM: Polish and
Transylvanian 233.
8. GLRSKI: Grzegorz Pawel 189.
9. +Epistola Ecclesiarum Transylvanicarum, ad Ecclesias Polonicas, De Baptismo: in qua
late proponunt sententiam suam de hoc ritu contrariam sententiae Fratrum Polonorum, probantes,
Christianos eo nunc amplius non obligari. Scripta a. 1566. Budzinus eam exhibet Historiae suae
cap. 45. MS." (The letter on baptism of the Transylvanian churches to the churches in Poland,
90

wherein they set forth in detail their own views, which are contrary to those of the Polish brethren,
insisting that this is no longer compulsory for Christians.) Christophorus SANDIUS: Bibliotheca
Antitrinitariorum. Freistadii 1684. (Facsimile edition: Warsaw 1968.) 173.
10. The following works have provided information on this subject: GLRSKI: Grzegorz
Pawel 185--190. -- IDEM: Piotr z Goniadza. In: Studia nad dziejami polskiej literatury
antytrynitarskiej XVI. w. Kraków 1949. 52--100. -- Stanislaw KOT: Ausbruch und Niedergang
des Täufertums in Wilna (1563--1566). In: ARG 49. 1958. 212--226. -- George Hunston
WILLIAMS: Anabaptism and Spiritualism in the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania: an Obscure Phase of the Pre-history of Socinianism. In: Studia nad arianizmen. ed.
Ludwik CHMAJ. Warszawa 1959. 229--245. -- SZCZUCKI: Marcin Czechowic 56--66. -- James
MILLER: The Origins of Polish Arianism, in: Sixtenth Century Journal, XVI (1985), 229--256. --
Lech SZCZUCKI: Szymona Budnego relacja o poczatkach i rozwoju anabaptyzmu w zborze
mniejszym, in: ORP XXXI. 1986. 93--109. -- IDEM: The Beginnings of Antitrinitarian
Anabaptism in Lithuania and Poland in the Ligh of a So-far Un knowu Source, in: Anabaptistes et
Dissidents an XVIe siecle ed. J. G. ROTT and S. L. VERHEUS Baden-Baden 1987. 343--358.
(Bibliotheca Dissidentium -- Scripta et Studia 3.)
233.
11. GLRSKI: Grzegorz Pawel 189. See also SZCZUCKI: Polish and Transylvanian 231--
12. Rövid magyarázat 4.
13. He will be discussed in detail later.
14. Géza KATHONA: Egri Lukács anabaptista-antitrinitárius nézetei [The Anabaptist
and Unitarian views of Lukács Egri]. In: ItK LXXV. 1971. 412.
15. NAGY: Méliusz Péter 250.
16. It is possible, of course, that Melius was using the usual weapon against Anabaptists.
Let me note, as a curious fact that in Ochino's Dialogue 27 his conversational partner is a
Eusebius, who had come from Hungary (ex Ungaria profectus) in search of the true church of
Christ. Since he could not find it among the reformed churches either, he returned to his homeland
like Noah's dove to attempt to found it there. Bernardini Ochini senesis Dialogi XXX. 329--377.
17. Rövid magyarázat 13.
18. Rövid magyarázat 33.
19. Rövid magyarázat 31.
20. Rövid magyarázat 39.
21. That is why I cannot accept the way De falsa et vera is interpreted FIRPO, Antitrinitari
nell'Europa 27., who sees Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism as completely free from Anabaptist
tendencies, and diagonally different from Polish and international Antitrinitarianism: +Ed e
significativo il fatto che nella principale opera pubblicata dal Biandrata in questi anni, il De falsa
et vera, non fosse dedicato alcun esame approfondito alla questione del battesimo dei fanciulli,
che pure in Polonia polerizzava l'attenzione e le discussioni dei gruppi radicali."
22. Rövid magyarázat 16.
91

23. +Sic et in Baptismo retrograde processum a chrismate, sputo, sale, candelis initium
facientes, postea ad exorcismos, signa crucis, obstetrices (quia necessitate ingruente baptizari
deberent infantes) et ad compatres demum, et ad ipsum paedobaptismum ventum." De falsa et
vera. AA3r., 125.
24. Rövid magyarázat 33--34.
25. Rövid magyarázat 44.
26. Rövid magyarázat 52.
27. The 36 arguments have also survived bound together with other Antitrinitarian
publications from 1568. It is included, for instance, in the copy of Refutatio propositionum Petri
Melii in the National Széchényi Library, as well as the copy at Sárospatak of Demonstratio
falsitatis doctrinae Petri Melii (described in RMNy No. 250.). Cf. Jena ZOVcNYI: A
magyarországi protestantizmus 1565-tal 1600-ig, Budapest 1977. 364.
28. Described in RMNY 270.
29. POKOLY: Az unitarizmus 244.
30. Antal PIRNcT: Dávid Ferenc: +Könyvecske az igaz keresztyéni keresztségral" és
annak német eredetije [Ferenc Dávid's +Booklet on true Christian baptism" and its German
original] ItK LVIII. 1954. 301.
31. Stanislaw KOT: L'influence de Michel Servet sur le mouvement antitrinitarien en
Pologne et en Transylvanie. In: Autour de Michel Servet 102.
32. KATHONA: Egri Lukács 412.
33. Described in RMNY 284.
34. Könyvecske Av.
35. WOTSCHKE: Der Briefwechsel 307--308.
36. Christianismi restitutio 564--573.
37. De regno Christi KKr--KK4v. (The theses below are quoted from here.)
38. +Sed quando nihil prohiberet, quorsum eis baptismus exhiberetur? quis esset effectus?
quae utilitas? Ubi verbum domini, id facere iubens?" Christianismi restitutio 560.
39. +In sacris nullibi invenitur Paedobaptismus, et nullum de eo mandatum, vel exemplum
habemus, ergo reiicendus. Sic praevaluit argumentum adversus Papam, in evertendo purgatorio. In
iis enim, quae nobis ad salutem necessaria sunt a non scripto ad non factum valere videtur
argumentum. Sic dicunt esse paedobaptismum, ergo quia non scriptus, non faciendus."
40. +Adultos caecos, mutos, et surdos non unquam baptizare audebat, tanto minus
infantes, qui nec ambulare, nec comedere, nec audire, aut loqui possent."
41. +Baptismus est mortificatio et asolutio cum invocatione nominis Jesu, Actorum 22."
92

42. +Baptismus est depositio sordium et peccatorum, ac consepeliri, Colossensium 2. et 3."
43. GLRSKI: Grzegorz Pawel 242--243.
44. +Regeneratione efficiuntur homines dii, sunt autem dii et quos sermo Dei facti. Ergo
paedobaptizati non sunt dii, qui sermonem Dei non audierunt."
45. +Propter delicta ergo datur quis in reprobam mentem, non propter servum arbitrium.
Sicut Christus in caelo habet liberum arbitrium, ita ex parte nos ab eo illuminati habemus."
Christianismi restitutio 569.
46. +Reprobi non sunt baptizandi, multi ex infantibus sunt reprobi, ergo abstinendum, ne
profanetur sacramentum per nostram ignorantiam."
47.KATHONA: A heidelbergi káté 96.
48. +...et damnamus Anabaptistarum furores cum Novis Catabaptistis. Nam Christus
omnes docere et Baptizare iubet." Refutatio propositionum Iv.
49. +Asserimus et nos cum spirito sancto et Ecclesia Catholica homines baptizandos esse,
quicunque instituti sunt de vera dei Patris notitia, et filii eius Jesu Christi. Nam doctrina secundum
praeceptum Christi premitti debet Baptismo. Quod autem infert Melius, quod interna illuminatione
Spiritus sancti docentur infantes, respondemus primo id esse Melii somnium, nam corde creditur
ad iustitiam, et ore sit confessio ad salutem. Quandocunque ergo edunt ore proprio confessionem
tunc agnoscemus illos aptos esse ad externum symbolum suscipiendum." Refutatio propositionum
I2r-v.
50. KOT: L'influence 100--102.
51. +Cogi homines ad Paedobaptismum, est sacramento tribuere, quam par sit, et Papae
opinionem stabilire, qui docet, neminem posse absque baptismo salvari. Ergo non properandum
praecipitanter."
52. My sources on these include the following works: Heinold FAST: Bullinger und die
Täufer. Weierhof 1959. -- IDEM: Bemerkungen zur Taufanschauung der Täufer. In: ARG 57.
1966. 131-151. -- John H. YODER: Täufertum und Reformation in Gespräch
Dogmengeschictliche Untersuchung der frühen Gespräche zwischen schweizerischen Täufern und
Reformation. Zürich 1968. -- Hans Jürgen GOERTZ: Die Täufer Geschichte und Deutung,
München 1980.
53. +Non potest ad Christum vocari, qui non potest a Ioanne praeparari. Ut Christo
praemititur nuncius, viam parens, ita Christiani cuivis: vere catechizans erat Ioannes Baptista."
Christianismi restitutio 567.
54. +Non debet ad Christum vocari, qui non potest a Ioanne praeparari."
55. +Gloriatur Paulus et gratias agit Deo, quod neminem baptizaverit praeter Caium et
Crispum et Stephanae domum 1.Cor 1. Quam igitur necessarius sit paedobaptismus, illinc collige:
Et quod praeterea Christus ne quidem adultum baptizarit unquam, vel Ioannes baptista infantem."
56. +Non datur baptismus absque poenitentia: Infantes poenitere nesciunt: Ergo Ioannis 2.
Actorum 2. Baptizabantur nempe a Ioanne Baptista confitentes peccata sua Marc. 1."
93

57. +Ex Trismegisto ipsi in libro de regeneretione, et ex Sibyllinis oraculis, aperte
docemur, baptismum non convenire, nisi hominibus adultis.Qui laticis culpas abluti fonte
perennis, Praeteritas, rursum geneti, planeque renacti, Iam non infandis parebunt moribus orbis.
Haec docet Sibylla octavo libro, quae et primo docuerat, baptizandos debere instituti, Vt rectos
faciant calles, animosque repurgent a vitiis, et aqua lustrentur corpora cuncta, Ut nunquam
deinceps peccent in iura, renati." Restitutio christianismi 565.
58. +Nazienzenus sermone de baptismate, optat differi baptismum donec pueri de fide sua
aliquid possint respondere. Trismegistus et Sibyllae docent, adultis tantum competere posse
baptismum. Musculus Dusanus in epistola ad Roma, folio 430 optat, ut nec anxie, nec neglectim,
nec aequo properantius, nec iusto tardius, fidelium parvuli ad initiationis sacramentum afferantur,
damnat anxiam festinationem, quo necessitaem, quam alii fingunt, tollat, et libertatem concedit.
Augustinus quoque libro 4 contra Donatistas, parvulorum baptismum scribit non fuisse a consiliis
stabilitium, incepisse autem Origenis tempore, unde constat Ecclesiam etiam confirmationis
sacramentum adinvenisse quod suspicaretur de inventione paedobaptismi."
Ergo."
59. +Illi vere dicuntur fratres, qui ex eodem poculo bibere possunt, infantes non possunt.
60. WILLIAMS: The Radical 316.
61. +ß...i..iv est proprie tingere, sicut tinctor, qui et baptistes dicitur, pannum in aqua ponit,
et aquam desuper fundit. Ad quem modum nos cum baptizamur in aquam ipsam descendimus, et
desuper aqua nobis a baptizante funditur. Ita desuper renovamur et abluimur, in coelum postea
super aquas ascendendo." Christianismi restitutio. 544--545.
62. +Christus annorum triginta baptizatur, et nobis exemplo sunt quotquot Apostoli
baptizarunt, qui de infantibus nullam mentionem unquam fecerunt."
63. KOT: L'influence 103.
64. GLRSKI: Grzegorz Pawel 242--247.
65. LUBIENIECKI: Historia 229--230.
66. +Sprawe prawdziwego y porzadnego krztu nie tylko tak obwarownie slowo Boze
pokazuie, ale y niektorzy z Doctorow Papieskich na onych poczatkach nieco szczerszych (na ktore
sie my nie ogladamy, bo dosyc na iednym Oycu w Niebie y na iednym od niego zalecanym
Mistrzu Krystusie mamy) tosz chocia iakoby przez zeby poswiacaia zwykla niestatecznoscia sobie
sami sprzeciwni bedac y to psuiac. Miedzy inszemi Augustin pisze Lib. IV. contra donatistas ze
krzest dziecinny nie byl od Conciliey postanawiony, ale sie poczal za czasu Origenesa Doctora
etc. Przeto tez Kosciol Papieski ono swoie bierzmowanie blazenskie wynalazl byl: ze watpil iako
o niedoskonalym Krzcie dziecinnym. Madremu a bacznemu dosyc." Krotkie dowody A3r-A4v.
67. +Non debet ad Christum vocari, qui non potest a Ioanne praeparari."
68. +Nie moze zaden do Krysthusa przylaczony byc, ktory w przod wnetrznem Krztem
okrzszczony nie bedzie." Krotkie dowody Br.
69. +...Et quod praeterea Christus ne quidem baptizavit unquam, vel Ioannes baptista
infantem."
94

70. +... Krystus thez zadnego choc z doroslych nie krzcil. A Ian y z drugimi na to wyslany,
zadnego z dzieci niemowiacych do krztu nie przypuszczal." Krotkie dowody A2r--v.
71. Adultos caecos, mutos et surdos nemo unquam baptizare audebit, tanto minus infantes,
qui nec ambulare, nec comedere, nec audire, aut loqui possunt.
72. Cokolwiek oprocz wiary iest, gzech iest. Romano XIIII. versu XXIII. Krzest Dziecinny
iest thakowy: Przetho grzechem y przeklectwem u Boga iest. Krotkie dowody Bv.
73. Described in RMNY 292.
74. Könyvetske az igaz keresztyéni keresztségral [Booklet on true Christian baptism].
Described in RMNY 284.
75. Earlier Zoltán TRLCScNYI: A Könyvetske az igaz keresztyéni keresztségral [The
Booklet on true Christian baptism], in: Magyar Nyelv XI. 1915. 227. had credited Gáspár Heltai
with the authorship. Cf: PIRNcT: Dávid Ferenc: Könyvecske 302.
76. Even the thorough essay of Daniel LIECHTY: The Hungarian +Booklet concerning
the True Christian Baptism": Its Flemish Origins and Theological Significance, in: Mennonite
Quarterly Review, LXII (1988) 332--348. was unable to give a definitive solution concerning the
Flemish original. He convincingly argues, at the same time, that the work was written in the 1560s
in the circle of Jakob de Roore and Herman van Vleckwijk. Believing that the authors working
from the legacy of Jacques d' Auchy polemize to a considerable extent with the spiritualism of the
Davidites, Liechty does not rule out the possibility that the original also had had Unitarian
inclinations.
77. Könyvetske V4r.
78. Quoted in József Pokoly, Az erdélyi református egyház története I. Budapest 1904.
79. EOE II. 368.
95

Back
III.
REINTERPRETED RESTITUTIO CHRISTIANISMI AS MORAL PHILOSOPHICAL
FOUNDATION
There is no doubt that the most significant publication of the period, besides De falsa et vera, is
De regno Christi. Contemporaries were also aware of that since it was precisely these two works that
Melius wished to refute in a polemic work for the European public to be published in Latin in
Switzerland.1 Although the Antitrinitarian tradition of church history2 has always known that the latter
work relied on Servet's Restitutio, it was István Borbély3 who has proved it clearly for Hungarian
scholarship, Stanislaw Kot's study4 revealing the importance of this opus with respect to the later history
of Restitutio for foreign scholars as well.5
This work has been mentioned above during the consideration of the christology and baptismal
doctrine of the Transylvanians. It has also been shown in what Latin and vernacular editions the Eastern-
Central European Antitrinitarians made use of it and what its significance was in the development of the
Antitrinitarian movement. My purpose has been to trace, using the results of scholars who have registered
the concordances, what ideologically relevant changes were made on the texts by the editors. In this
chapter we shall see what other factors besides those mentioned so far motivated the compilation of the
work, what were the criteria for the selection, and what other changes were made necessary by having to
face the doctrine of the mature Servet.6
It is, however, clearly difficult to avoid the danger of overinterpretation while understanding even
the selection of texts. For it is obvious that since the authors wanted to produce a book of smaller
dimensions from the voluminous work of Servet, they had to cut the original in the first place. But this
danger is considerably diminished by the fact that they borrowed nothing from the first two parts of
Restitutio, the Platonic reinterpretations of juvenile works, from the Epistolae part, and from the
Melanchthon apology. Thus they used practically two parts: De fide et iustitia regni Christi [On the faith
and justice of Christ's kingdom] and De regeneratione superna et de regno Antichristi [On the rebirth in
heaven and the kingdom of the Antichrist]. This kind of selection was made easier by the fact that in
Restitutio metaphysical discussions are comparatively well, though not completely, separated from moral
philosophy and, as we shall see, the compilers also had to struggle with that. However, they did not adopt
unaltered the two large units in question, and the order of the books within was not preserved either. The
dedication contains some information concerning the principle of re-structuring where it says that truth is
better seen through oppositions. Thus they wanted to produce a work of antithetic structure and since
Restitutio, especially the part De regeneratione, did not meet their expectations in that respect, they had to
perform some rearrangements. This character of the work is incidentally strengthened by the two chapters
that do not come from Servet. Book One concludes with the chapter entitled Notae membrorum regni
Christi [Signs of the members of Christ's kingdom], while the closing part of the book on the kingdom of
the Antichrist is a pseudo-document: Genealogia Antichristi filii Diaboli inventa in Bibliotheca Romana
ad partem sinistram ingredienti, Anno Domini MDXIII [Genealogy of the Antichrist, son of Satan, as
found in the Library of Rome, left of the entrance].
This would explain why part of the sub-chapter De praedicationis evangelii efficacia [On the efficacy
of preaching the gospel], which Servet discusses in Book Three of the part De regeneratione, is
placed into the first book, and the second part of the same sub-chapter, which Servet himself had regarded
as a digression, was put in a more proper place, in the book discussing the mysteries of the Antichrist.
Such alterations were the least necessary during the compilation of their first book, and the logic of those
96

changes is easier to see. It was logical that, in accordance with the title of the opus, the chapter De regno
Christi be put to the beginning of the work upsetting the order of the original, and causing in turn the
change of the order of two further chapters. They had a more difficult job with compiling Book Two,
bringing their material together from various chapters of the part De regeneratione. A similar procedure
has been seen in the case of Tractatus de paedobaptismo.
These rearrangements and the concurrent textual changes also had ideological reasons, of course.
What we can see here is the tendency we have seen while discussing the christological debates, and which
we called avoiding the platonizing Servet. This would explain that at the beginning of Book Two they
entirely omitted Book One of the part De orbis perditione of Restitutio, and they begin adopting the
second where it describes how the kingdom of Christ was destroyed and infected in recent times. Kot7 is
not quite precise when saying that Blandrata sums up the contents of the omitted part in the independently
composed introduction of Book Two since the praefatio rather intends to blur the special elements of
Servet's cosmogony. For it is in the omitted part of the original that the Antichrist is most cosmically
represented and it is there that Servet gets farthest from the image of the man (false prophet) Antichrist,
while the introductory lines of Book Two of De regno Christi attempt to adjust what they have to say to
earlier works written against the Roman Antichrist.
Nor can the fact be interpreted in any other way that while the chapter De ordine mysteriorum
regenerationis is almost entirely taken over, a larger part is omitted, in which Servet, describing the
regeneration in baptism, repeats +...what we have often said, that the substance of the Creator is united in
the creatures and is mixed in the body and the soul in various ways, and Christ being the figure for all
these."8 Thus Restitutio was cleaned of the elements of prisca theologia, and it is not a coincidence that
Hermes Trismegistus appears in De regno Christi as merely the one who exposed Papist superstitions and
paedobaptism.
But the work also continues the tendency of the earlier works in that it is not content with omitting
the Platonic elements but there is a more general tendency against philosophy as well. József Pokoly and
also Stanislaw Kot9 have held that the reason the Transylvanians changed the titles of chapters in a number
of cases was lest the work could be identified with the original. This, obviously, may have been one
consideration. But if De fidei fundamento [On the basis of faith] replaces De fidei essentia [On the
essence of faith], one is justified to speak of philosophical terms being avoided. This tendency can be
perceived in the differences registered under items 5, 6, 8 and 12 of the table as well.
Since christological and baptismal changes have been treated above, below we are going to
examine the chapters that discuss issues of soterology. This layer of the work has been analyzed by
Konrad Górski,10 and very aptly, too, without his knowing the relationship between De regno Christi and
Restitutio. He holds that Blandrata elaborated his soterology basically on Erasmian grounds although apparently
never breaking away from the sola fides doctrine of Luther. And the basic elements of an optimistic
anthropology are indeed discernible here. By the adoption of the chapters already used in Rövid
útmutatás and De falsa et vera, the difference between the Old and the New Testaments and that of the
god-man relationship before and after Christ is even more solidly outlined. While earlier the basis of
justification was works, now it is faith. This does not mean that actus has become unnecessary, and the
adopted texts sharply condemn those who attribute no importance to good deeds. Indeed, what the
Anabaptist opposition of the Old and New Testaments leads to is that Christians cannot be satisfied with
deeds which are naturaliter bona, i.e. met the moral prescriptions of the Old Testament. Thus the position
outlined is clearly distinguishable from that of the reformers.
And really, elements like this are easily detectable already in the chapter discussing Christ's
kingdom, placed at the head of the work. This formulates the status of man clothed in Christ and regenerated
by the Holy Ghost, firmly asserting that the inner man experiences of the future glory in this earthly
existence. The various prophecies relate to that regnum inside us, which of course only those can win who
97

esurrect in baptism with Christ. The argumentation becomes polemic when it says that they are mistaken
who believe that the gospel is the promise of things to come. In the above sense, the gospel is not a
promise but, on the contrary, its fulfillment since the human soul is already now experiencing eternal life.
This line of reasoning is continued in the other chapters, of which the second discusses in the way
described above the difference between the Law and the Gospel. As a result of the changed order, the two
subsequent chapters provide a definition of faith in accordance with this definition of the gospel. As we
can read in the introduction, it is necessary because questions have been raised and because there are
many who believe, not incorrectly, that we are saved by faith alone, but know not what faith really is.
After posing the main questions (what is faith, whether we are saved by faith alone, whether good works
are necessary) a strictly biblical demonstration follows, abounding in attacks on the +Sophists". It tries to
show with biblical passages listed in the spirit of evangelical simplicity that faith does not relate to
promises but is a strong trust for what has been given already. While this biblical reasoning is addressed
to the simple-minded, the following chapter speaks a more sophisticated language. It shows that the
various definitions of faith have absolutized partial elements only and so cannot reach the essence. This
way it argues with those who say that faith is the knowledge of God's benevolence, the understanding of
divine justice, the conviction that sins will be forgiven, or hope in promises. We are given an independent
definition through a sketch of the process of the development of faith. First intellectus is activated, which
through listening to sermons forms various pieces of knowledge on Jesus Christ, the object of faith. On
this level sill there is a similarity between faith in Christ and assorted other inner acts of man. In the case
of faith, however, there is a new element in which the heart (cor) and the will (voluntas) play a crucial
role. For these decide what one accepts or rejects of those proposed by the mind, but these also determine
whether one really does what the mind approves of.
The definition of faith is naturally important not for itself but because it is the foundation of the
soterology to be elaborated afterwards. There is no doubt that the nearly complete adoption of the
Restitutio chapters, already made partial use of in Rövid útmutatás and in De falsa et vera, has preserved
in the opus the most important element of the Servetian thought. In this way the explications allowing the
historically changing modes of justifications have been kept, and the difference between the Old and the
New Testaments and that of the god-man relationship before and after Christ is even more solidly
outlined. What is however really new as compared to the thoughts transplanted into earlier works already
is the analysis of the relationship of faith, charity and works. From the chapters dedicated to this, it
becomes clear that accepting the fundamental thesis that the basis of justification in the Old Testament is
works and in the New is faith cannot mean the neglect of the significance of good works. This is
supported by observations concerning the role and essence of faith. These make it clear that Luther's
doctrine of sola fides is tenable but as a partial truth only, in the sense that it is through this that man is
delivered from death and the curse of the law. For this is the function of Christ's saving death, and in that
sense we can really say that our sins are forgiven through mere grace, without respect to our merits. But
in that sense only, which does not deny the validity of good works. Thus faith, as the basis of justification,
makes it possible for charity and good works to fulfill their function.
This relationship is most clearly formulated in the chapter entitled Collatio charitatis cum fide
[Comparison of charity and faith]. Although declaring as a starting point that faith is primary as the basis
of justification, the chapter goes on to list the following seven arguments to prove the superiority of
charity.
1. Charity includes everything that is expected from us and granted to us through grace by
justifying faith, it is by charity that faith will be really fruitful.
2. Charity spreads wider than faith. Faith is directed to God only, while charity to God and to our
neighbour, to the head and to the members as well. Christ's body is being built in us by charity, by one
98

member doing its duty toward the other.
itself.
3. Charity makes faith productive and living. For the Holy Ghost that enlivens faith is charity
4. It is more difficult to love than to believe. For charity endureth all things, as Christ, who loves
us beyond measure, did for us.
5. Charity is more constant, is the natural symbol of the kingdom to come, in which there will be
nothing but charity.
6. Faith is the beginning, and charity the fulfillment. The beginning of Christ's kingdom is faith,
its fulfillment is charity, and the road in between is also charity.
7. God is charity. There is nothing that would take as close to Him as charity, since God itself is
charity.
Both in this and in subsequent chapters further arguments praise charity and the activity combined
with it, which increases faith and does not allow it to die. All this logically leads to the apotheosis of good
works. It is clearly pointed out in a number of chapters that good works will be rewarded in the world to
come, and that Christians will also partake of the other-worldly glory in a hierarchy according to their
deeds. Finally the chapter entitled De operum origine et efficacia [On the origin and efficacy of works]
concludes the problematic in the centre of the first part of the opus. It says that although faith, charity and
other factors of human behaviour are parts of human activity, these are not so much its main cause, but
rather means. The spiritual movement [motus spiritus] that dictates our deeds receives great emphasis
mainly in contrast with human will. This movement is superior to the will, which is proved by the fact
that it is more difficult to execute something than to want it. That is why the Scripture separates the
commandments limited to the will from those including deeds as well: it is one commandment that
forbids us to steal and another that tells us not to covet other people's goods, there is one regarding
adultery and another about coveting your neighbour's wife. What all this has to warn us is that we should
strive towards good works after Christ's examples by mastering ourselves and breaking the resistance of
the rebellious body.
Even this sketchy description will have shown that Melius was correct in discovering various
heresies in this opus since in addition to christology, he could meet here such a notion of soterology that
was obviously at odds with his. In spite of this, the interpretation of the anthropology outlined in the
work, and its relation to the reformers' legacy need a discriminating approach. It is evidently very
important in that respect to what extent the compilers of De regno Christi adopted the reflections in which
the author of Restitutio appraised his own and his opponents' views. A great number of passages like that
have been preserved in the Transylvanian opus. +O that all the preachers of God's kingdom would preach
the gospel in this sense,"11 goes the pious wish after Servet, but those are also harshly condemned who
regard the gospel as promises only: +Those are most foolishly in error who define the gospel as the mere
promise of the future, as if it promised distant things, instead of giving."12 The conclusion of the chapter
on faith is clearly arguing with the Lutherans and/or the followers of the Reformation when it declares
after Servet: +Today many preach correctly that we are saved by faith only, but they do not know at all
what faith is. They believe the Jews had a faith like ours and were our equals, as if Christ's coming and
rebirth had brought nothing new to the earth, neither a new covenant nor new creatures."13 Servet already
condemns Lutherans and Calvinists here for despising charity and good works, and the introduction of De
operum mercede et gloriae differentia [On the merit of works and the difference of glory] makes it quite
clear that it is arguing primarily with them: +Wishing to speak now on charity and good works, we bring
forth by way of an introduction an argument against those who attribute no significance to either charity
99

or good works."14 The polemic intention is even clearer in the closing passage of Collatio charitatis cum
fide: +Thus, those are mistaken today who regard themselves as justified through some magical
knowledge they call faith; we have shown sufficiently how ignorant they are of the true faith of
Christ."15 The most serious problems of interpretation are, however, raised by the passage where, as the
logical outcome of the tendency of the opus, they attack the doctrine of servile will (servum arbitrium) as
well: +He who sows sparingly shall reap also sparingly; he who sows bountifully, giving generously and
with benevolence, shall have a bountiful reaping. 2Cor.9 The divine payment is not given to beasts of
burden with servile will, but to men who work at the reaping to turn it to good account, like Christ, with
interest."16
At the same time it is clearly discernible in the textual differences given in the appendix that the
Transylvanians tried to mitigate the polemic passion of the original. Since De regno Christi declares at
another place that ardua magis res est amare, quam credere [it is more difficult to love than to believe],
and, as it has been shown, it takes over the chapters discussing the relationship of faith and charity, there
is probably no need to attribute special significance to the textual difference disregarding the contrast.
This may have had conspirational purposes because this meant the changing of the concluding sentence of
a chapter. A comparison with Restitutio, on the other hand, clearly shows that the compilers of the
volume were too careful to put the issue of free will in the centre and to carry on a debate with the
reformers over that as well. The omissions and/or differences registered in items 1, 13, 14 speak for
themselves, but items 6 and 8 are also good examples. It would be particularly prudent to pay attention to
the latter because here Servet, reminiscent of his twenty-second letter to Calvin, is arguing that man has
not lost his freedom completely despite Adam's sin: +You can see another clear example of freedom in
the fall of the first angel and the first man, who were completely free. Yet we, although we are oppressed,
still have some remains of the divinity and a spark of the freedom."17
Thus the neglect of the Servetian expressions against the doctrine of servum arbitrium cannot be a
coincidence. For both this work and the other publications of the Antitrinitarians contain passages in
accordance with this procedure. For instance, that is how the independently composed Genealogia
Antichristi begins in Part Two of the volume in question:
+The devil begat obscurity and explanations so that truth be not conspicuous:
Obscurity begat ignorance:
Ignorance begat error and its brethren:
And error in turn begat free will:"18
But we can refer to the fact too, that Ferenc Dávid inveighed in his sermons published in the same
year against those believing in free will: +...they also sin who do not recognize Jesus Christ as the son of
God, by whom the Father prepared our salvation, and who assume the certainty of the salvation without
it, attributing salvation partly to their own free will and partly to Christ."19 Thus it would seem that, all
considered, it must have been due to inconsistency or to a lapse of editorial attention that the only passage
-- quoted above -- against servum arbitrium found its way unchanged into the Transylvanian opus.
For it is clear that their view would be consistent if they followed their example in that respect as
well since the apotheosis of charity, and especially the fact that they do not treat good works as a sign of
being selected for salvation only, would unquestionably induce that. However, in the period under
discussion this is not done, not by Ferenc Dávid at least, as it is well-known how scandalized he was
when he learnt of the soterology of Palaeologus and Sommer.20 Seen from the developments of the
100

seventies, this might with good reason seem immature and controversial because, although reluctant to
preach free will, the whole work suggests a optimist anthropology at odds with that of the reformers.
Then again, this may, on the other hand, be a very consistent, deliberate attitude. For the authors read and
respected by the Transylvanians also included some, who did not regard the acceptance of servum or
liberum arbitrium prerequisite for salvation. The first name to come to one's mind is Bernardino Ochino,
who displays various positions, along with their weak points, in his dialogues, and who comes to the
conclusion after this survey that most important of all is virtutis exercitatio, the exercising of virtues.
Somewhat similarly the foreword of De regno Christi sets its aim by placing morals (mores) and love
based on faith (dilectio in fide fundata) in the centre: +Incidentally, whereas there are many especially in
this our age who confess with their mouth that they know God but deny it with their deeds; therefore, lest
God's word fall in disrepute on account of our godlessness, all should seek to make certain their vocation
in the Lord by their pious morals. We shall try to show with this our writing what is the weight of the love
based on faith and what place it occupies in this kingdom of Christ."21
The last chapter of the book to rely on Servet is De praedicationis evangelii efficacia [On the
efficacy of preaching the gospel]. The passage from the Restitutio adopted here discusses what role
preaching has in the regeneration of man and the spreading of the kingdom of Christ. The reasoning
moves mostly on a theoretical level, focussing on explaining that sermo, the word preached, cannot be
efficient without the spiritus working within, just as the servants of God's word [ministri verbi Dei] can
be God's helpers with the help of this only. Servet, who is not concerned with practical issues,
understandably does not mention the aesthetic problems of sermon composing. There is only a marginal
remark to the effect that if the preacher pays attention to the eloquence of his text, he is doubting the
power of Christ's cross. The explanation of the Protestant idea of universal priesthood leads to more
practical consequences. He asserts that every believer who helps his neighbour know Jesus Christ can
with good reason be regarded as apostolus, spiritualis minister. Teaching is thus the only true sign of
being a preacher, everything else being the invention of the Antichrist. From this it follows logically that
preachers have spiritual power only, their twoedged sword is that of the letter and the spirit. He condemns
vehemently the perfidy of the Babylonian whore, who fights with iron swords distorting the teaching of
Christ, who demanded from the apostles merely the sword of the power of faith. At the same time he
stresses that preaching the word, being reborn, has inner as well as external signs. +The sword of the
word and of the spirit is one and the same: it is a twoedged sword with not only two different meanings
but which changes the listener with its double power internally and externally as well."22
The editors of the Transylvanian opus borrowed these thoughts from Servet's work. But they, preoccupied
with the practical issues of church organization, could not remain on this theoretical level.
Therefore, they put a short, autonomous supplement to the head of the chapter, raising all the problems in
connection with the institute of universal priesthood. The preachers of God's word are divided into three
groups. The first contains those with a special vocation (peculiari vocatione, singulari revelatione), including
the angels, the prophets of old, the apostles and Paul, who had filled the whole Arabia with the
gospel of Christ before he met the apostles. To the second belong those sent legally (legitime) by the
churches to preach the gospel, and who thus are functioning in possession of missio ordinaria, but do not
lack divine mission either. Those in the last group have arbitrary and false mission only (missio ultronea
falsaque), driven merely by their individual ambition. Although their activities can be useful sometimes,
they do more harm than they do good, and the faithful are advised not to listen to them but avoid them as
if they were thieves who enter the house not through the door: +And these, although useful now and then
since God, according to His will and liking, brings out sometimes very good from even the bad, more
often destroy than build and are, therefore, not to be listened to but to be avoided like those who have
entered not through the door."23
This introduction clearly reinterprets the Servetian ideas that follow it because, while accepting
that all believers are spirituales ministeres, they still accord exceptional roles to some. This is a natural
procedure by those who are busy organizing a new church. It is more intriguing, and indicates the efforts
101

of the Antitrinitarian leaders to keep the movement unified within a determined framework, that the
special mission to publicly preach the word is not granted to just anyone. It is particularly important that
only the prophets and apostles of old have the privilege to rely exclusively on revelation. In the present
this is not possible, and whoever does that will be branded as a false prophet. Divine instruction is
reserved for those ab ecclesiis electi, who represent churches.
But the passage on preaching is not an independent section with Servet, but part of a larger unit
discussing the ministries of Christ's church. Therefore, a short introduction precedes the chapter De
praedicationis evangelii efficacia, listing these ministries: praedicatio (preaching), baptismus (baptism),
and fractio panis (breaking of the bread). The Transylvanians adopt these lines, although worked into the
main text, and they also clarify, after Servet, what role this triad has in the inner rebirth of man: +What
has been sown and planted by preaching is watered and enlivened by baptism, and nurtured by the Lord's
supper; all these external acts are granted efficacy by the Holy Ghost."24 Thus, it seems that the
Transylvanians followed their Spanish example with respect to the number and function of the sacraments
as well, and deviated from the views of the reformers. For the latter often discussed the common features
in the word and in the sacraments, but they clearly distinguished the word from baptism and the Lord's
supper.
However, it has been shown earlier that the editors of the opus either did not adopt the baptismal
doctrine of the Spaniard, or they made significant changes in it. A similar procedure can be observed in
the case of the Lord's supper as well. For several reasons they again refrain from using the chapter De
coena domini [On the Lord's supper] that discusses the issue in the greatest detail because this has a rather
peculiar notion of the relation between the sign and the signed. He rejects very sharply the views of
Catholics (transubstantiores), Lutherans (impanatores) and Zwinglians (tropistae). He attacks most
vehemently probably the latter because, though the Lord's supper is the symbol of remembrance for him
as well, he regards it quite differently from the way they do. The crucial element of his notion, following
from christology, is that man can partake of the heavenly nature of Christ through the Lord's supper. So,
he believes in the real presence of Christ, but for him this means primarily that the divine matter is
assumed by men. Thus, through the bread and wine of the Lord's supper, which is the body and the blood
of Christ, man is united with God. In an optimistic anthropology Christ's real presence in the Lord's
supper makes the deification of man possible.
It is clear from all this that the adoption of this conception was hindered by christological as well
as anthropological causes. That is why textual omissions 11 and 15 cannot be regarded as technical, but
were necessary because the texts in question refer to the Servetian doctrine of the Lord's supper, expounded
elsewhere. Thus the passage directly preceding the text omitted under no.11, which is the fifth
argument for faith and good works, was kept because it was probably interpreted spiritually: +Fifth:
charity, declared in the Lord's supper, has the main energy in building Christ's body within ourselves. Just
as we, working for one another by doing works of love, like one member for another, are becoming more
and more one body, so Christ's body is constantly growing within us by the same charity."25
On the other hand, this chapter, obviously under Anabaptist influence, wants to return to the
practice of the old Christian churches in the administration of the Lord's supper as well. These, says
Servet, collected goods that were superfluous and organized communal meals. Thus they had the Lord's
supper every day and not annually or every three months. Accordingly, he firmly opposes the administration
of the sacrament in private. For him the Lord's supper is a characteristically communal act, deeply
permeated by charitas, in which not only man is united with Christ, but the believers are united as well.
And although not discussing in detail questions of ecclesiology, this chapter clearly outlines the need for
the restoration of the old practices, including that of washing each other's feet.
On the other hand, for the Transylvanians the corruption of the Lord's supper meant that the
Antichrist had distorted it into Papal mass and the Servetian ideas just mentioned are not used anywhere.
102

Therefore, it would seem that, contrary to the view of Stanislaw Kot, the closing lines of De
praedicationis evangelii efficacia (+further, we have decided to postpone our lecture on the Lord's supper,
on its use, purpose and power -- for we have had to fight so far so intensely that the innovators, with their
immoderate squabbles and with burdening the church with those many questions of debate, have seemed
to obscure the light and simplicity of truth -- to another time...")26 are not promising the publication of
further chapters from Restitutio either. We cannot say what they may have meant, but Servet's doctrine of
the Lord's supper contained elements that they cannot have agreed with. Thus the book on the kingdom of
Christ is concluded with an independently composed passage (Notae membrorum regni Christi), which is
extremely important with respect to the socio-ethical views of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians, and
which will be considered below in a separate chapter.
There is no need to discuss the second part describing the kingdom of the Antichrist because the
Servetian texts used there have been mentioned in a different context. It is declared at the beginning of the
chapter that the adoption has been necessary because the empire of the Antichrist will collapse sooner if
its head is exposed, so the believers must be told what has been said about this by the prophets, by Christ
and by the apostles. There is a passage that refers to those who live in exile having escaped oppression
and to those who have not escaped tyranny yet, in an interesting way: +It will come to pass that those
who have escaped his merciless hands will persevere more steadfastly in exile, and those living under his
terrible tyranny even now are looking easier to the future awaiting them."27
It has been mentioned that the Transylvanians omit the discussions on the corruption of the
material world in their source: +Although once there occurred such an immense pollution by Satan in
heaven and on earth that on account of the sin the angels, the elements and the animals all swore against
miserable mankind, and everything ordered for their use and salvation became entirely poison for us, such
as death, hell, and all sorts of diseases came in, and all celestial light was obscured; but even greater has
been the devastation and destruction caused in more recent times in Christ's kingdom by the son of Satan,
the Roman boar..."28 -- these are the words that lead to their proper subject, the corruption of Christ's
spiritual kingdom. In some respect this is indeed a summing up remark, but one that lacks the significant
elements of the Servetian concept: such as the connection between Adam's fall and the breaking up of
universal order, the parallelism, mixed with light mysticism, of celestial and terrestrial events, the
presentation of the Antichrist as a cosmic force.
The adopted texts expatiate in detail the principle that the law as shadow also represented the
injustices now being fulfilled. The text, relying mostly on the prophecies of Zechariah and Daniel as well
as on the Book of Revelation, explains with detailed biblical exegesis that Rome is to be regarded as a
spiritual Babylon, and is at the same time a spiritual Sodom and Egypt, i.e. the fulfillment of all godlessness.
It details with special enthusiasm the description of the +triad of the three evil spirits" described
in Revelation. These are the dragon (draco) cast out of heaven, the beast (bestia) rising out of the sea, and
the other beast (bestia alia pseudopropheta), who cause great destruction. While interpreting Apocalypse,
Servet fortifies the description with new elements not in the biblical text. He places the residence of the
beast coming out of the sea to the hill Esquilinus, consisting of seven parts, between the lower and the
upper seas. Thus the seven heads of the beast referring also to Rome stand for the seven empires, its ten
horns symbolizing the kings under it. The description of the other beast also called sorbonicus magister is
not less expressive: its two horns mean the corporeal and, of course only apparent, spiritual power of the
church, and not content with denouncing the Pope only, Servet harshly criticizes his whole host. He
interprets the other details of Revelation in a similar way, explaining, of course, that the Antichrist is the
embodiment of Jeroboam, Achab, Abaddon, Nabuchodonozor, Antiochus and all the evil ever written
about in the books of the Old Testament or by heathen historians.
It seems that these sections with their complicated allegories and glossaries of Hebrew phrases
were meant for learned readers by the editors of the opus. Two sub-chapters were, however, intelligible
even for simple readers. The section adopted under the title Signa sexaginta regni Antichristi appeared in
103

Restitutio as an appendix to thirty letters written to Calvin. It could be lifted out of this context, neglected
by the way during the compilation of the Transylvanian work, because it provided a concise summary of
the chapters describing the mysteries of the Antichrist. There are no complicated lines of reasoning, but
concise theses contain the gist of Servet's message: the Antichrist has been reigning since Sylvester and
Constantine, but the time is fulfilled, and his tyranny will soon come to an end.
Something similar can be said about the pseudo-document, written by the editors of the opus, as
far as we know now, at the end of the second part of the book. The text, built from sentences linked together
as a chain, describes the process by which the son of Satan will come to power. The section up to
free will has been quoted above, its continuation takes one to the forgetting of grace (gratiae oblivio),
breach of duty (praevaricatio), on to various superstitions and ethical sins. Then comes the birth of the
pope and the removal of Babylon, which results in the rejection of the Scripture and the rise of the false
doctrine. At this point we have a series of Trinitarian errors, described nearly the same way they are in
Rövid útmutatás. However, the most interesting element in the Latin text is that it makes the Antichrist's
exposure and the victory of the evangelical light necessary. For the profane words and a number of sins
are followed by the freedom to commit sins, and the series is concluded in the following way:
+The freedom of sin begat curse:
And curse begat confusion:
Confusion begat anxiety:
Anxiety begat questions:
And questions begat the quest for truth:
And truth begat light:
And light begat the light of the Gospel, through which the Pope Antichrist, the man of sin, and the
son of Satan and perdition, has been exposed."29
As a conclusion, a playful arrangement of words declares that +Christ's blood has washed those
pushed into the grave by the evil serpent."30
It can be seen from all this that the Transylvanians limited the editorial work to simplifying
Servet's conception and adopting certain easily digestible parts. At the same time, by adopting Servet's --
though simplified -- conception they swerved away from the world of ideas that, inspired by Luther and
his followers, were so forcefully formulated in the works of the Hungarian reformers from Imre Ozorai
through Péter Melius. Especially conspicuous is the absence of the thought, a commonplace by that time
in Hungarian antichristology, that the corporeal Antichrist was the Turk (identified with Gog and Magog),
currently ravishing Christendom, while the spiritual was the Pope. It has been shown that following
Servet the Hungarian Antitrinitarians had the Pope hold both the spiritual and the corporeal weapons.
However, no matter how spectacular that might be, one should be advised against explaining this with
political motives, with the pro-Turkish policy of Transylvania, or connect this with the oecumenism
embracing even Jews and Muslims, which László Makkai31 underscores in Blandrata's activity. It would
seem that in the period under discussion this kind of oecumenism existed on the pen of the opponents of
our Antitrinitarians only. When accusing the latter with inventing the +Turkish Christ", the former merely
repeated the charge the reformers had rehashed ad nauseam, which was a distortion of Servet's thought,
namely, that the Jews and the Turks had turned away from Christians because of the introduction of
104

Trinity. Therefore, it would seem that regarding Blandrata as the champion of such universalism would be
projecting the ideas of later Antitrinitarians notable either for their to pro-Turkish attitudes (Adam
Neuser) or for their really spacious universalism (Jacobus Palaeologus) on an earlier period. As far as we
know, even later, Blandrata would tolerate such universalistic ideas at the most on a theoretical level only,
and the +oecumenism" he was working on was one remaining within the world of Christianity and built
on Polish--Hungarian dynastic connections. Thus the antichristology of De regno Christi, so peculiar in
Hungarian Reformation, would seem to be explained by the fact, clearly obvious from the preface, that
the work was meant not for the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians only.
The third part of the opus, exposing paedobaptism, has been treated above. Summing up, we can
say that the editors created a clearly organized work, which was more didactic than the original, and very
useful in the propaganda for the church. It is clearly discernible how they omitted the Servetian thoughts
that were problematic for them, but precisely the publishing of the volume shows how much they adhered
to the legacy of the Antitrinitarian martyr. The adoption of the books on the kingdom of Christ is
particularly important since the Antitrinitarians' moral philosophy and the system of socio-ethical
doctrines different from the reformers are based on these works.
105

1. WOTSCHKE: Der Briefwechsel 307--308.
2. MARCHETTI: La storiografia 387--388.
3. BORBÉLY: A magyar unitárius 38--43.
4. KOT: L'influence 94--103.
5. For the fact that the re-publication of the 1790 Nuremberg Restitutio, which has made
modern research possible, involved Transylvanian cooperation, i.e. it was done with the help of
the copy of Sámuel Teleki, see József SPIELMANN--Mihály SEBESTYÉN--Anna DEÉ NAGY:
Servetus's Christianismi Restitutio and Transylvania, in: Harvard Library Bulletin XXXI (1983)
fasc. 1. 52--63.
6. I have made use of the following works while interpreting it: Roland H. BAINTON:
Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus (1511--1553). Boston 1953. (in German:
Michael Servet 1511--1553. Gütersloh 1960.) -- Lech SZCZUCKI's introduction to the Polish
selection of Servet's works: Michael Servet (1511-1553) Wybór pism i dokumentów. Warszawa
1967. 9--53. -- Carlo MANZONI: Umanesimo e eresia: Michele Serveto. Napoli 1974. -- Jerome
FRIEDMAN: Michael Servetus. A Case Study in Total Heresy. Geneve 1978.
7. KOT: L'influence 101.
8. +...quae saepius diximus, Creatoris substantiam esse creaturae in unum plasma varie
unitam et mixtam, tam in anima, quam in corpore, quorum omnium specimen est Christus."
Christianismi restitutio. 549.
9. POKOLY: Az unitarizmus 163. -- KOT: L'influence 103.
10. Konrad GLRSKI: Humanizm i antytrynitaryzm. In: Studia nad dziejami polskiej
literatury antytrynitarskiej XVI. w. Kraków 1949. 43--51.
11. +Utinam in hoc sensu regnum Dei concinatores omnes nunc evangelizarent." De regno
Christi Bv.
12. +Errant turpissime, qui evangelium definiunt esse solam promissionem rei futurae,
quasi a remotis quid evangelio promittatur, non potius donetur." De regno Christi B2r.
13. +Plerique hodie fidem solam iustificare, merito affirmant: at quae sit illa fides, plane
ignorant. Parem illam Iudaeis olim fuisse contendunt, et fuisse eos nobis aequales, quasi adventus
et regeneratio Christi nihil novi orbi contulerit, nec foedus novum, nec novas creaturas." De regno
Christi Fv.
14. +De charitate nunc et operibus dicturi, praeludii vice argumentum unum in eos
proferemus, qui nec charitati, nec operibus quicquam tribuere volunt." De regno Christi L4v.
15. +Illusi ergo sunt hodie, qui magica quadam cognitione, quam vocant fidem, se solos
iustos existimant, cum tamen eos veram Christi fidem ignorare, sit satis ostensum." De regno
Christi L4r.
16. +Qui sementem facit parce, is parce messurus est; qui sementem facit copiose,
liberaliter ac benigne largiendo, is copiose messurus est. 2. Cor.9. Divina pecunia non iumentis
106

habentibus servum arbitrium, sed hominibus negotiatoribus ad messam data est, ut eam veluti
Christus cum foenore exigere." De regno Christi Nr.
17. +Exemplum aliud libertatis clarum habes in peccato primi angeli et primi hominis, quod mere
liberum fuit. Nos vero quanquam simus oppressi, aliquam tamen habemus superstitem deitatis, et
libertatis scintillam." Christianismi restitutio 301.
18. +Diabolus genuit caliginem et glossas, ne conspicua esset veritas:
Caligo autem genuit ignorantiam:
Ignorantia genuit errorem et fratres eius:
Error autem genuit liberum arbitrium:" De regno Christi EE2r.
19. Dávid Ferenc: Elsa része... predicaciocnac... 55v.
20. PIRNcT, Die Ideologie 47--48. -- ROTONDO: Verso la crisi 205--223.
21. +Ceterum, cum plerique nostra hac tempestate, deum se scire ore profiteantur, factis
autem negent: ne verbum Dei per nostram impietatem ulterius male audiat, contendet quisque ut
sanctis moribus certam in domino faciat suam vocationem. Quanti nempe sit ponderis dilectio in
fide fundata, et qualem in hoc regno Christi locum obtineat, hoc scripto nostro declarare
conabimur." De regno Christi Av.
22. +Sermonis et spiritus gladius vnus est duo gladii; est gladius utrinque scindens, qui non
solum duplicia sensa referat, sed et duplici virtute externe et interne auditorem immutat." De
regno Christi O4v.
23. +Et isti quamuis fructus nonnumquam faciant, Deo ex malis optima quaeque iuxta
beneplacitum voluntatis suae exerente, ut plurimum tamen magis solent destruere, quam
aedificare, ideo minime audiendi sunt, sed tanquam, qui per ostium non sint ingressi, vitandi." De
regno Christi O3r. Sermon 25 of Dávid, in an interesting way, makes a similar argument of the fact
that John the Baptist, according to the prologue of John's gospel, was +a man sent from God":
+Fuit homo missus a Deo, he did not rush to his calling as he liked, but God sent him and wanted
him to have a calling." Elsö része... precatiocnac... 136r.
24. +Qui per praedicationem plantatur et seminatur, per baptismum rigatur, et vivificatur,
per coenam domini nutritur, spiritu sancto internam efficaciam his omnibus tribuente." De regno
Christi O2v.
25. +Quinto, in aedificando corpus Christi in nobis, charitas habet energiam supremam, in
coena domini declaratam. Sicut nos per officia charitatis, unius membri in alterum, magis et magis
in unum corpus aedificamur: ita corpus Christi magis in nobis per eandem charitatem facit
incrementum." De regno Christi N3r.
26. +Item de coena domini, eius usu, fine, atque virtute, cum hactenus adeo acriter
digladiandum sit, ut neoterici nimium altercando, ecclesiamque multis quaestionibus onerando,
veritatis candorem, et simplicitatem obscurare visi sint: habita temporum ratione, et ne lectores
nunc nimium exerceamus, in aliud tempus tractationem diferre decrevimus..." De regno Christi
Q2v.
27. +Sic etinem fiet, ut qui illius crudeles manus effugerunt, constantius in exilio
107

perseverent, et ii, qui sub illa horrenda tyrannide adhuc vivunt, rebus suis tempestive prospiciant."
De regno Christi Rv.
28. +Quamvis ingens olim pollutio per satanam in coelo et in terra facta sit, ut per
peccatum Angeli, elementa et animalia quaeque in miseros homines conspirarint: Et quae usui
illis, salutariaque futura erant, omnia in venenum usque adeo conversa sint, ut mors, infernus,
omniaque morborum genera introducta, et omnia lux coelestis obscurata sit: longe tamen maior
per filium Satanae aprum Romanum vastatio et contaminatio in regno Christi novissimis
temporibus facta fuit..." De regno Christi R2r.
29. +Licentia autem peccandi genuit abominationem:
Abominatio autem genuit confusionem:
Confusio genuit anxietatem:
Anxietas genuit quaestiones:
Quaestiones autem genuerunt inquisitionem veritatis:
Veritas autem genuit lucem:
Lux autem genuit lumen Evangelii, per quod revelatus est Papa Antichristus, homo
peccati, et filius Diaboli et perditionis." De regno Christi EE3v.
30. Qu di an tris cum fu stra
os rus gvis ti nere vit
H pu san Chris de vul la
De regno Christi EE3v.
31. László MAKKAI: Un catéchisme hongrois contre les antitrinitariens. In:
Antitrinitarianism in the Second 94.
108

Back
IV.
THE SOURCES AND THE SPECIFICS OF DAVID'S CHILIASM
There is very little doubt that the most exciting part of the first Antitrinitarian work of Ferenc
Dávid written in the Hungarian language, and the one raising the most difficult problems of interpretation,
is Chapter One, which outlines a chiliastic1 plan. Its significance has been referred to above, during a
comparison of the Latin and Hungarian versions. I also mentioned the hypothesis after Pirnát that perhaps
the earlier Latin version may not have been free from this tendency. Since, however, this is a hypothesis
only, and we know nothing about the facts of the argumentation in a possible earlier version, at the
present stage of research all we can do is compare the texts that we have. This textual comparison has
revealed two important differences.
On the one hand, the Latin quite clearly outlines the process of the restoration of the apostolic
church. Neither is this idea absent from the Hungarian version, cropping up in a passage completely
independent of the Latin text. In the Hungarian, however, the dominant position is occupied not by this
but by the coming of a state of affairs that has not existed so far: +The prophets predict a peace that has
never been, for then all arms will have to be lost and burnt, sabres will be beaten into plowshares, angry
wild beasts will not harm and there will be such a peace that will never again leave room for war."2 The
interpretation of Rev 20 will leave absolutely no doubt that what Dávid has in mind is not only the
restoration of the early church. What is most important for him in the message of St. John is that he
describes +how wonderfully the holy church will be renewed, how Satan, who has never been bound in
this world, will be bound for a thousand years."3 This motive returns later when he declares that +the
cause of the war is that Satan has not been bound yet, who at the time of the Apostles changed himself
into the angel of light and went crying to look for whomever he could swallow."4 Spelling out the
thousand years indicates that what we have here is a chiliastic idea. The features that characterize the state
of things to come also point into this direction. Like the chiliasts, relying mainly on Is 11, he speaks of a
peace never seen before: arms will be beaten into plowshares, there will be no beasts of prey, wolves will
not hurt lambs, etc.
The forty years of wandering in the desert is a figure of the quest for the whole truth both in the
Latin and in the Hungarian. The Latin, however, does not undertake to determine with numerological
speculations the time of the culmination of the events. The Hungarian, on the other hand, attempts to do it
in several somewhat contradicting variations, justifying in part the time of the writing of the work and in
part that of the coming of the millennial empire. First he mentions a few events from the late 1520s: the
meeting of Luther and Zwingli at Marburg, Zwingli's disputes with the Anabaptists, Servet's De Trinitatis
erroribus, the publication of Erasmus' New Testament commentaries and of Cellarius' De operibus Dei.
Without giving a precise year, he draws the conclusion from these that +the forty years are up now,
during which the people were wandering in the desert."5 This is followed by another combination,
operating with the fiftieth year, the year of joy. This points to the time of writing since it was in 1517 that
Martin Luther started to pry open the coffins of Christ. Nor does he omit to mention that the number ends
with the sacral digit 7. Then again he uses the motive of the forty years' exile, since this is the time that
has passed since Luther and Zwingli published their creed in Augsburg in 1530. Thus he declares that the
millennial kingdom of Christ will begin in 1570, which will be indicated, naturally, by celestial signs as
well. This he supports with the additional fact that the Babylonian captivity also ended in the seventieth
year.
109

plan.
A consideration of the most important sources used by Dávid may assist the understanding of this
The literature on the subject, after Imre Révész,6 mentions first of all Servet's Restitutio. This is
corroborated by a comparison of the texts as well. A significant element of the historico-philosophical
design outlined in Restitutio is that the Antichrist -- another manifestation of Satan, who is just as
incarnate as Christ -- again corrupts the world reborn through Christ. This kingdom of the Antichrist will
be destroyed by the returning Christ. It is well-known that Servet, who identified himself with the
Archangel Michael, intended no mean role for Restitution in the destruction of the edifice of the
Antichrist. Innumerable passages of the work show that he saw himself as the servant of a coming epoch,
one that will begin after the final defeat of the Antichrist. It is not clear, however, whether this will be
Christ's millennial kingdom, or the realm of eternal peace after the last judgement, as in the eschatological
expectations of so many reformers.
A number of places in Restitutio allow for the former possibility. According to the Servetian interpretation
of Mt 24, the Apostles asked Christ about three dates: +the time of the destruction of the temple,
the time of his coming and the time of the fulfillment of times, Mt 24, where his coming is before the
time of fulfillment, clearly taught by the Apostle Paul 1Thess 2 and John in Revelation, where Christ says
he is coming soon."7 Then a reference to Rom 11 makes quite clear that both the Jews and the Gentiles
will convert at that time: +Paul said that when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, the whole of Israel
will be converted to Christ, Rom 11."8
Servet also distinguishes between the day of the first spiritual resurrection, when we resurrect
from the first papist death, and the time of the final resurrection: +Now we resurrect from the papist death
for a thousand years, which John calls the first resurrection. So this will be the Lord's day, the day of
resurrection. Similarly, the day of the final resurrection is called the Lord's day, great and
illustrious."9 This passage leaves no doubt as to Servet, a true chiliast, believes this epoch will last for a
thousand years.
Friedman,10 however, correctly points out that Servet's philosophy focused not around the
description of the epoch to come but around setting the events of the past in order. This might explain
why he is not always consistent in distinguishing between the events of the millennial kingdom and those
of the last days. There are passages in Restitutio where he presents the above mentioned event of Christ's
millennial kingdom, i.e the conversion of Jews and Gentiles, as one belonging to the last days. Thus we
can perceive a tendency which blends the millennial kingdom among the events of the last days without
clearly defining its independent role. This is also strengthened by his interpreting crucial biblical
passages, e.g. Rev 20, for events to come in some places, and for an earlier defeat of the Antichrist in the
past, in others.
It is also conspicuous that Servet does not go into a detailed description of the millennial kingdom.
His simply referring to Is 11 and mentioning in particular the conversion of the Gentiles only renders the
spirituality of Christ's kingdom to come more unanimous than it is with Dávid, who, as we have seen,
does not only refer to the biblical passages but also gives their paraphrases or at least their solutions.
Thus, the position of the Spanish heretic is ambiguous, and is open for more than one interpretation. That
will explain why scholars, depending on which tendency they view more important, will write about the
prophetic looking forward to the end of the world in Restitutio, or the chiliasm in the same.11
Be as it may, with Ferenc Dávid this latter reading is dominant. It is also indicated by the fact that
Rövid magyarázat does not discuss the relationship between the coming millennial kingdom and the
events of the last days, and the work's silence on this complex system of relationship strengthens to a
great extent the chiliastic idea. This may be due to a lack of explication, though, but that is of secondary
importance with respect to the result. The point is that Dávid clearly calls upon his followers to wait for
110

and/or request the millennial kingdom, which is to be realized with the second coming of Christ. In this
respect his chiliasm is thus much more unequivocal than that of Servet.
Other elements also indicate its comparative independence of Restitutio. Servet's philosophy is
centered around an interpretation of the history of Christianity borrowed from the Anabaptists. According
to that, the rule of the Antichrist was consolidated at the time of Pope Sylvester and Constantine and
would last for 1260 years. This number is arrived at, following mediaeval radical apocalyptics, by
regarding the 1260 days, the time the woman clothed with the sun spent in the wilderness, mentioned in
Rev 12:6, as so many years. Based on that, scholars usually give two dates as to when Servet expected the
kingdom of the Antichrist to collapse. If the first year of Constantine's reign (305 A.D.) is regarded as the
year of the fall of the church, the date in question will be 1565, but if it is the Synod of Nicea (325 A.D.),
which played a great role in developing the dogma of Trinity, then the date will be 1585. Though we
should remember that Servet himself never pointed to either of these dates.
In that respect it is important that Ferenc Dávid mentions the Emperor Constantine in an appreciative
way. He represents him as a ruler who disliked debates among Christians and felt concern for the
cause of Christianity. (This opinion would change in the later works, but here Constantine's praise is
unequivocal.)
On the other hand, we have also seen that the numerological speculations employed by Ferenc
Dávid are not connected with Servet at all. As we have seen, Dávid tries to deduct the date of Christ's
second coming from the events of the Reformation and not from counting how many years have passed of
the reign of the Antichrist. As if deliberately not spelling it out, he speaks of a thousand and a few
hundred years.
The differences from Servet thus also encourage us to go on seeking other sources. The reflections
of Dávid and his associates also move us in the same direction. It will be remembered that in the chapter
Quomodo Christus of De falsa et vera they encourage the believers to read the works of Capito and
Cellarius in order to understand the restoration of the church. It is also well-known that they themselves
promoted that literature republishing in 1568 a part of Cellarius' De operibus Dei under the title De
restauratione Ecclesiae in a book called De Mediatoris Jesu Christi hominis divinitate@divinitate et
aequalitate [On the divinity and equality of the mediator Jesus Christ the man].12 But more than that,
there is evidence to prove that the works were also very well known and used in Transylvania, the works
that, according to the convincing argument of Arno Seifert,13 relying on the ideas of Cellarius14 formed a
philosophy which was different from that of the Anabaptists but was increasingly suspected by Protestant
denominations of being chiliastic. The authors in question are Sebastian Castellio15 and Celio Secundo
Curione.16 Later we shall see how much the Transylvanians identified with De hereticis, an sint
persequendi [On heretics, whether they are to be persecuted] and the dedication to Edward VI of the 1551
Bible translation. Curione is also known to have had connections with Eastern Central Europe. It is thus
mentioned here for the record only that he dedicated his De amplitudine regni Dei [On the vastness of
God's kingdom] to Sigismund August. It is perhaps a less known fact that Melius, the Calvinist opponent
of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians, several times mentions Curione as the teacher of Antitrinitarians.
Most tellingly, however, with Blandrata's mediation, he was invited in 1567 by John Sigismund to the
university to be founded in Transylvania.17 These facts make it imperative that the views of Ferenc Dávid
be compared with those of the persons above.
Cellarius allotted a distinguished place in his salvation history to the second coming of Christ,
which he calls by various names: annuntiationis Christi adventus [the coming of Christ's annunciation],
revelationis Messiae adventus [the coming of the revelation of the Messiah], visitatio per verbum suum
[the visit by his word], revelationis sui secundus adventus [the second coming of his revelation]. He
believes that the prophecies traditionally interpreted for the first coming of Christ will be fulfilled by the
second coming only, which will be longe praestantius [much more significant] than the first. For at his
111

first corporeal appearance relatively few knew him in the whole world, and according to Daniel 9:27, he
confirmed the covenant with these merely for a week, only to hand them over to the kingdom of darkness.
In another place he writes that the corruption occurred in the middle of the week following the death of
Christ. Two details should be mentioned in connection with this. One is that he interprets Rev 20, a
crucial passage in the ideas of the Chiliasts, and the binding of Satan clearly as an event of the future. On
the other hand, he unequivocally links this second coming of Christ with the new preaching of the Gospel,
i.e. the Reformation. Thus his work can be regarded as the apotheosis of the Reformation.
The most interesting element of his philosophy is the special attention paid to the parallelism
between the fates of the Jews after Christ and that of Christianity. He holds the prophecies of the Old
Testament are valid for the history of the Jews after Christ as well as the history of Christianity, thus
viewing parallelly the fates of carnalis Israel [Israel in the flesh] and Israel secundum promissionem
[Israel according to the promise]. The function of Christ's second -- and, on the strength of the above
definitions, essentially spiritual -- coming is precisely that the fates of the two Israels are simultaneously
consummated in it. Events in the Old Testament are allegories of the histories of both Jews and Christians
after Christ, while the events concerning the Jews after these Apostles are themselves allegories of all that
nations experience. The terrestrial and celestial Jerusalems were destroyed in the same hour, and the
lamentations of Jeremiah still seemed to relate to the sack of this Jerusalem on earth, +...yet, if you examine
the mystery with the Apostle, and lifting the veil you step into the shrine after the unction, you will
find that these also fit us, who are the posterity of the celestial Jerusalem and Abraham's spiritual
seed."18 And just as the Christians were deprived of the light of the Gospel, so the Jews also had to go
without the prescriptions of the law, the Talmud totally suppressing those.
This conception is obviously related to that of Rövid magyarázat. We have seen that Dávid clearly
views the binding of Satan as an event of the future, and it was also shown during the comparison of the
Hungarian and the Latin in De falsa et vera that both list the spies (exploratores) along with a company
that makes it appear as the apotheosis of the Reformation. But even a closer connection can be
established.
Although not explaining consistently the parallelism of the fates of the two Israels, yet Rövid
magyarázat discusses +all the families of the posterity of Israel" in conspicuous detail. Like Cellarius, he
also holds that the +recovery" of the Jews belongs to his time because at the time of Christ's first coming
the nations of Israel +were in the promised land in peace and in union."19 For him the reconciliation of
Ephraim and Judah is the symbol of the end of discord between the faithful among both Jews and
Christians.
Something nearly the same can be said about the other consequences of the second coming of
Christ. Cellarius discusses regnum iustitiae et cognitionis bonitatis domini [the kingdom of justice and of
the cognition of the Lord's goodness] in much more detail than Servet: there will be no more wars, idols
will have been banned, the wolf will lie down with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, sons will return
to their fathers. The fact itself that the above conception allows a bolder use of Old Testament allegories
makes the description more vivid: regnum gloriae menans lacte et melle, et oleo gloriosae cognitionis
Dei [the kingdom of glory running with milk and honey and with the oil of God's glorious cognition].
Dávid, who resolves the prophecies in a similar way is closer to this work in this respect as well than to
Restitutio.
The dependence on Cellarius, however, becomes most palpable in the interpretation of Mt 23:39
and Lk 13:35. Cellarius relates these passages to the second coming of Christ, summing up the parallel
histories of the two Israels in the following way: +Eventually, after the long exile of blindness and
ignorance of God, both will receive Jesus Christ in this hour of the revelation of the Gospel with great
exultation and joy, who will be much more present when he comes, and they will cry together, in one
voice: `Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord'".20 Rövid magyarázat contains nearly literally
112

the same interpretation.
Of course, the correspondence is not mechanical in the case of De operibus Dei, either. Cellarius
does not define the duration of Christ's kingdom to come, nor does he get involved in numerological
speculations trying to determine when the process that started with the Reformation will reach its
culmination. More important than that, though, is that he does not distinguish between the theological
contents of the second and the third comings, as it clearly appears from his hermeneutical remarks at the
end of the chapter. For he declares unequivocally that the biblical passages he applies to the second
coming are also to be applied to the third. Just as adventus maiestatis [the coming of his majesty] means
the resurrection of the dead, so adventus per verbi victoriam [the coming of the victory by the word] also
brings resurrection, that is to say the first resurrection of Rev 20, which exemplifies the freedom from the
second death. As in the latter case, the former also means a harvest, that is when the elect are separated
from the godless. Just as at the last coming the angels will gather the faithful from the four corners of the
world, so at the second the faithful will come together at the trumpet call of the Gospel on the earth,
which will have all the joys of the garden of Eden. Like the last coming, the one now will also recreate
everything, Christ will cast all under His feet, ruling gloriously after binding Satan and the princes of the
kingdom of darkness. Thus the second coming loses its autonomous theological standing, merely
prefiguring, as it were, the events that will come to pass at the third.
A shorter consideration will do regarding the views of Sebastian Castellio, which are better known
but theologically not so well argumented. We remember that the dedication of the 1551 Bible translation
addressed to Edward VI passionately argues for the coming of an epoch in which men will be inspired
with the true love of God. If this came to pass, we should be in possession of the true knowledge of God.
+And thus the really golden age, promised by Jehovah of great arms, would be born (Mal 4, Is 11, 60, 69,
Ezek 36, Rev 20. and elsewhere), when all will be taught by God; but you can hear the voices of those
who are too timid to believe, who hold it profane if someone dares to hope for an epoch better than ours,
as if God's arm had become shorter, or His ears stopped, as if we ought to lose heart if something has not
been as yet instead of hoping all the more, if something has not been as yet which He has promised, He
who never lies, and who can give life back to the dead."21
He then goes on to deny that this better epoch could be identified with the days of the Apostles:
+And if he says, in the time of the Apostles; I will ask why was that so short and why the knowledge of
God and the piety, which is, and which was more abundant than the sea, according to the promise, broke
up so soon."22 Nor can he identify the epoch of peace with his own times since in that plowshares are
being beaten into swords, but concludes this discourse with the belief of a humanist who trusts in science
and education, that this peace exists among the princes of the litterati and the teachers of the people.
This conception is interesting on several accounts. For one, it argues for the coming kingdom of
peace characteristically by using the biblical passages favoured by chiliasts, although the argument is not
strictly theological. On the other hand, and this is the most interesting element, what we have here is a
peculiar symbiosis of the humanist idea of aureum saeculum and of a philosophy close to that of the chiliasts.
It would, however, seem useful to consider in some detail Curione's work entitled De amplitudine
regni Dei since it simultaneously contains the idea of a theologically well-argumented medius adventus
[middle coming], a cautious chiliasm, and a humanist conception of aureum saeculum.23 It is well known
that the work centres around the refusal of the thesis that the number of those to be saved is small. Book
One of the dialogue of Mainardus and Curione gives in connection with this the interpretation of the
biblical passages that are traditionally mentioned as proof of this thesis. Mainard's interpretation is the
same in all cases: these passages refer exclusively to Christ's first coming, and are meant to be understood
for the few Jews and Gentiles who believed in Him at that time. That is how he ends up preaching the
second coming of Christ, and like Cellarius, he also holds that, among others, Mt 23:29 and Lk 13:35
113

efer to that. The second coming of Christ means the triumph of the Gospel in this case as well. Indeed,
Mainardus mentions the mass, the adoration of saints, the abolishment of the purgatory and the
purification of the Lord's supper, all of which makes it clear that the work is also an apotheosis of the
Reformation. Nor is the distinction between the second and third coming more consistent here than in
Cellarius. Indeed, he thinks God wishes neither to prove by miracles nor to openly reveal the mystery of
medius adventus, hence the numerous similarities in the Bible between the descriptions of the first, the
second and the third comings. He holds that the second is the fulfillment (absolutio) of the first and the
preparation (praeparatio) of the last.
Although less vivid then Cellarius when describing the coming regnum Christi, curiously he gets
nearer to chiliasm. First he says in general that he has also predecessors in this interpretation of the
restoration of the church: Cyrillius, Gioacchino da Fiore, Appolinarius, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus
Pictavensis, and this view was not unequivocally opposed by Augustine and Hieronymus either. It is more
important, however, that with this discussion Mainardus cannot avoid being accused of chiliasm even by
his partner: +For when you certainly designate such a golden period when that greatest number (of
believers) comes into the church, to most it will appear that you want to bring back the long outcast
chiliasts."24 Mainardus' reply, for all its ambiguity, is virtually the affirmation of chiliasm. On the one
hand, he declares that he does not wish to defend the chiliasts, but what they say about the millennium is
founded upon the Bible, namely on Rev 20. The he continues: +And if someone says they do not interpret
John's meaning correctly, I can answer: since they keep to the Scripture, and the debate is over things to
come, who can refute them in detail? Who is it that can prove which view is more true, theirs or of those
who deny that these words are to be understood as they are written? Moses taught that one can pass
judgement over things to come only if they have come to pass."25 Characteristically, in support of the
millennium he brings up Tertullian and mainly -- with a long quotation -- Lactantius, who both connected
chiliasm with ideas about aureum saeculum.
I hope it is clear from the above that, in addition to Christianismi restitutio, the works mentioned
above must also be considered among the sources of Ferenc Dávid.26 There seems to be little doubt that
his linking chiliasm with the apotheosis of Reformation27 was inspired by these, and that he had met
chiliasm in this context in the works of the humanists of Basle, respected for other reasons, as well. That
is how it became possible for him to join this tendency at a time when the association of social subversion
and chiliasm in the magisterial trends of the Reformation was a commonplace. At the same time, of
course, it should also be clear that this second coming of Christ expected in 1570 resulted in mainly
spiritual consequences for Ferenc Dávid. In the millennial kingdom he imagined Christ was not sitting on
the throne of the new Jerusalem to be built on earth, but appearing in the hearts of men as unadulterated,
pure and, therefore, efficient knowledge of God. That will have the power to end the rule of sin on earth,
consequently ending all the spiritual troubles, social and political conflicts that poison the life of mankind.
The social and political application of the expectation, however, appears in a very vague form. He
does not say that Christ will take over power from the princes of the world, and he is not concerned at all
with social and political institutions that be. Obviously, he was convinced that these can also be renewed
once their leaders have understood the truth of the teaching of the Gospel, and do their jobs in the future
in the spirit of justice and love. As in his other works, Dávid often mentions that in the kingdom to come
the simple will get their well deserved reward. However, the term means not simply those at the bottom
of the social hierarchy, but those uncorrupted by the science of the Antichrist. This work does not put
forth utopistic and communistic ideas, thus Ferenc Dávid cannot be regarded as the socially most radical
representative of the popular reformation in this respect, either.28
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to regard the conception merely as esoteric speculation. After
all, it cannot be ignored that unlike his assumed sources, Dávid formulated his ideas not in a Latin theological
treatise, but in a Hungarian pamphlet expressly for the purposes of day-to-day propaganda. In
that context it is not without significance that the idea of aureum saeculum, which occurs as a matter of
114

course in the case of the humanist Castellio and Curione, is absent from Rövid magyarázat, undoubtedly
making the conception not only more biblical but more popular as well. The same end is served by the
fact that whereas not even Servet, the most obsessed of the authors mentioned so far, undertook to predict
the precise date of the coming kingdom of Christ, Dávid did just that, getting closer by that to the
Anabaptist preachers (Hut, Hoffman) who supported their visions with numerological speculations,
although the details lack any similarities whatsoever. For all that, we cannot speak of social radicalism
here, indeed, there is even a certain moving away from the tradition of the earlier generation of the
Hungarian Reformation. For it must be clear that Dávid's ideas radically differed from the eschatology
that heated the social passions of Luther and Melanchthon.
The essence of the @latter is that it considers the spiritually interpreted millennial kingdom already
past (hence putting the fall of the church to a much later date), and its prophetic predictions concern
the last judgement. It is by the coming of the +last days" that the more intense activity of the corporeal
and spiritual Antichrist is explained, the preachers finding a reason precisely in this state of being endangered
to list the sins of the princes. The sense of danger is increased by the fact that the @third two
thousand years of the world history applied in this scheme will not be fulfilled because of the sins
committed, thus the end of the world can come any day.
In the milder world of Ferenc Dávid the believers are at the gate of +Canaan's land", and are not
threatened at all by the coming of Christ. It is worth remembering that Curione brings this up as well in
De amplitudine regni Dei against medius adventus: +As to the last proposition: I am afraid lest this
opinion about the middle coming of Christ should make many people, who are conceited enough as they
are, even more self-confident when they hear that the last judgement is still not coming, but first a golden
age begins, in which all the peoples and nations will have to unite in one religion, and they will enjoy on
earth the most complete peace and tranquillity."29
Even though Mainardus replies to this saying that the farther the last judgement the more the believers
expect it, there is no doubt that Dávid's version of requesting and expecting the kingdom of peace
was much less suitable for articulating social intentions than the visions of the preachers who lived in
terror of the last judgement.
It is necessary to spell this out because it has been mentioned in the literature on the subject that
the peasants' rising that took place in the vicinity of Debrecen in 1570 was also inspired by the ideas of
Ferenc Dávid.30 Seeing clearly in this matter is rendered more difficult by the fact that the events are
known from the notes of a few historians only.31 That much, nevertheless, seems to be clear that György
Karácsony, a peasant prophet represented as the +black man" preached mainly the coming end of the
Turkish rule through a series of miracles. Like Anabaptist prophets, his figure was surrounded by
miraculous deeds and expectations (fortresses taken without arms, healings, miraculous feeding of his
host), and a number of definitely Anabaptist details were also recorded: cursing and taking oaths was
shunned, and they lived in some kind of rapture. This is all we know about them except, of course, the
end of the story: the miracles were late in coming so a part of them scattered, another part marched to
Debrecen, where the inhabitants of the town and the assembled nobility dispersed them, and had their
leader executed. Thus, it would be really an interesting experiment trying to place György Karácsony
among the peasant prophets of Europe; but nothing indicates an intellectual connection with Ferenc
Dávid. Two important facts should be pointed out in this connection. On the one hand, as we have seen,
Ferenc Dávid predicted the fall of the Trinitarian Antichrist, his theory accommodating at most the
conversion of the Turks, therefore, he cannot have been the stimulator of an armed insurrection against
them. On the other hand, it would seem significant that just as Karácsony was gathering his host, Dávid
and Melius were having their religious disputes at Debrecen and at Várad, but neither party in none of the
documents of the debates comments on the appearance of the peasant prophet. Thus it would seem that
the insurrection of György Karácsony really belongs to a different dimension.
115

It is natural, at the same time, that in this case too, we cast a glance at the events in Poland. It is
well-known that the Polish brethren's interest in the Anabaptist social teachings led a significant part of
them by 1569 to march out, after the example of the Moravian Anabaptist communes, of the sinful world
to establish the +New Jerusalem" in the little Polish town of Raków. The failure of this enterprise, unique
on several accounts, would later influence to a crucial extent the development of Antitrinitarianism in
Poland. Yet, it is difficult to answer the question whether this experiment took place in the spirit of the
prophecies -- which were mentioned by Simler and could be related to Dávid's -- noted above during the
consideration of the chapters of De falsa et vera.
The uncertainty is caused first of all by the later Socinian historiography, which was to tame social
doctrines of the Anabaptists, as it kept deep silence concerning the events in Raków. Moreover, Grzegorz
Pawel's Okazanie Antychrysta i jego Królestwa, the work containing the greatest amount of information
on this aspect of the ideology of the Polish brethren, has also been lost. As we have mentioned, it was the
Polish translation of the chapter Signa sexaginta regni Antichristi et reuelatio eius iam praesens of
Restitutio, and it was published in 1568. We cannot know, however, to what extent Pawel modified the
Latin text.
It would nevertheless seem certain that the chiliastic ideas recorded in Rövid magyarázat cannot
be related to the foundation of Raków either. Emphasizing the inner renewal of the believers, expecting a
universal rebirth, and at the same time leaving the existing political institutions intact, this conception
simply could not have formed the basis of an experiment that was to leave the sinful world and called for
marching out from existing political communities. Therefore, we must say that if the views Grzegorz
Pawel held in 1567-68 were indeed similar to those of Ferenc Dávid, then later he had to turn away from
these so that he could become the prophet of the foundation of Raków. We suspect that the work, written
in 1570 and already lost, but listed by Sandius,32 was precisely a reaction, in which Dávid described his
views on the millennial kingdom of Christ for the Poles. The assumption can be risked that the Hungarian
Antitrinitarian could hardly have approved of the actions of his Polish brethren. For this would have
contradicted not only his work discussed above but was irreconcilable with his socio-ethical views, which
will be discussed in the following chapter.
116

1. The following works provide summary information on such views coming to the surface
in radical Reformation: Fritz HEYER: Der Kirchenbegriff der Schwärmer. Leipzig 1939. --
Franklin Hamlin LITELL: The Anabaptist View of the Church. Boston 1958.2 (Németül: Das
Selbstverständnis der Täufer. Kassel 1966.) -- Wolfgang SCHÄUFELE: Das missionarische
Bewußtsein und Wirken der Täufer. Neukirche 1966. (Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der
reformierten Kirche 21.) -- Günther LIST: Chilistische Utopie und radikale Reformation. Die
Erneuerung der Idee vom tausendjährigen Reich im 16. Jahrhundert. München 1973. -- Richard
van DÜLMEN: Reformation als Revolution. Soziale Bewegung und religiöser Radikalismus in
der duetschen Reformation. München 1977. -- Klaus DEPPEERMANN: Melchior Hoffman.
Soziale Unruhen und apokalyptische Visionen im Zeitalter der Reformation. Göttingen 1979. --
Walter KLAASSEN: Visions of the End in Reformation Europe, In: Visions and Realities Essays,
Poems, and Fiction Dealing with Mennonite Issues, ed. by Harry LOEWEN and Al REIMER
Hyperion Press Limited, Winnipeg, 1985. 13--57. -- Hans-Jürgen GOERTZ: Träume,
Offenbarungen und Visionen, in: Reformation und Revolution. Beiträge zum politischen Wandel
und den sozialen Kräften am Beginn der Neuzeit. Festschrift Rainer Wohlfeil zum 60. Geburtstag.
Hg. Von Rainer POSTEL und Fraklin KOPITZSCH Stuttgart, Steiner Wiesbaden, 1989. 171--
192. -- In the interpretation of the concept I am following Bernard TÖPFER: Das kommende
Reich des Friedens. Zur Entwicklung chilistischer Zukunthoffnungen im Hochmittelalter. Berlin
1964. 7--9., who applies the term exclusively for visions of the future hoping for the coming of an
ideal state of things here on earth.
2. Rövid magyarázat 46--47.
3. Rövid magyarázat 47.
4. Rövid magyarázat 49.
5. Rövid magyarázat 41.
6. Imre RÉVÉSZ: Debrecen lelki válsága 1561--1571 [The spiritual crisis of Debrecen
1561-1571]. In: Századok LXX. 1936. 41--43.
7. +...tempus destructionis templi, tempus adventus sui, et tempus consummationis seculi,
Matth. 24. Vbi adventus iste notatur, ante consummationem seculi id quod apertissime docet
Paulus, 2. Thess. 2. Ioannes in apocalypsi: ubi ait Christus, se cito venturum." Christianismi
restitutio 461.
8. +Futurum ait Paulus, ut cum advenerit plenitudo gentium, Izrael totus ad Christum
convertatur, Rom 11." Christianismi restitutio 461.
9. +Nunc a Papistica morte ad annos mille resurgemus, quae Ioanne dicitur resurrectio
prima. Erit ergo hic dies dominicus, dies resurrectionis. Dies item finalis resurrectionis dicitur dies
domini, magnus et illustris." Christianismi restitutio 422.
10. FRIEDMAN: Michael Servetus 37--40.
11. For the former, see BAINTON: Michael Servet 96-97., for the latter FRIEDMAN:
Michael Servetus 36-43.
12. Described in RMNY 249.
13. Arno SEIFERT: Reformation und Chiliasmus Die Rolle des Martin Cellarius-
117

Borrhaus, In: ARG, 77. 1986. 226--264.
14. Martin Borrhaus Cellariusról lásd Bibliotheca Dissidentium II. 1981. (Irena BACKUS)
valamint R. L. WILLIAMS: Martin Cellarius and the Reformation in Strasburg, in: Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 32. 1981. 478--497.
15. For more literature on him, see TRE T. 7. (1981) 663--665. (Hans Robert
GUGGISBERG)
16. See Markus KUTTER: Celio Secundo Curione. Sein Leben und sein Werk (1503--
1569). Basel--Stuttgart 1955.
17. For all this, see Stanislaw KOT: Polacy w Bazylei za czasów Zygmunda Augusta. In:
RP I. 1921. 105--138. -- For John Sigismund's letter to him (June 22, 1567) concerning the
university to be founded in Transylvania, see István ZSINDELY: A bázeli egyetem könyvtárából
[From the library of the University of Basel]. In: Sárospataki Füzetek V. 1861. 839. -- PIRNcT:
L'Italia 434--435.
18. +...tamen si mysterium cum Apostolo animadvertas, et remoto velamine, in
sanctuarium, unctione duce, intres, comperies eosdem et in nos, qui coelestis Hierusalem, qui
spiritualis seminis Abraham proles sumus quadrare." De operibus Dei K4v
19. Rövid magyarázat 49.
20. +Uterque demum post tantum caecitatis et ignorantiae Dei exilium, Christum Jesum
cum summa gratulatione et gaudio, in hac revelationis evangelii hora longe presentissime
venturum excipiet, et uno ore acclamabit, Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini." De operibus
Dei K4v-K5r.
21. +Atque ita nasceretur illud vere autem aureum seculum, quo essent omnes divinitus
docti, quod armipotens Iova polliticus est: Malach. 4. Esai 11. 60.69. Ezech. 36. Apo. 20. et alibi
passim, sed existunt ignavae diffidentium voces, qui pro infano habent, si quis audeat sperare
meliora nostris, quasi vero Dei sit vel decurtata manus, vel auris obstusa, aut quasi ideo
desperandum sit, quia nunquam ita fuit, ac non potius ideo sperandum sit, quia non fuit, et is
promisit, qui neque mentitur unquam, et potest etiam mortuis vitam reddere." Biblia interprete S.
C. una cum ejusdem Annotationibus. Basileae, per Iacobum Parcum sumptibus Oporini 1551.
22. +Si dicet, Apostolorum tempore, quaeram, cur tam parca fuerit, et tam cito exoleverit
Dei cognitio ac pietas, quae est, et marinis abundantior fuerat promissa."
23. On the circumstances of the publication of the opus and the debates that it started, see
Uwe PLATH: Der Streit um C. S. Curiones +De amplitudine beati regni Dei" im Jahre 1554 in
Basel, In: Eresia e Riforma nell'Italia del Cinquecento, Miscellanea I. Florenz 1974, S. 269--281.
IDEM: Calvin und Basel 164--167.
24. Nam, quod certum adeoque aureum designas tempus, quo amplissimus ille numerus sit
venturum in ecclesiam, plerisque videberis chiliastas iam dudum explosos velle reducere." De
amplitudine regni Dei dialogi sive libri duo. Poschiavo [Basel] 1554. 57.
25. +Quod si quis dicat, eos non recte Ioannis mentem intellexisse, huic sic responderi
posset: cum ipsi scriptum teneant, et sit de re futura quaestio, quis iure eos poterit refellere? quis
ultra sententia sit verior, illorum ne an aliorum, qui verba sic intelligenda esse negant, ut scripta
118

sunt, poterit demonstrare? De rebus enim futuris ex eventu iudicare docuit Moses." De
amplitudine 61.
26. Dávid may, of course, have used other sources as well. It should be noted, however,
that Gioacchino do Fiore mentioned by RÉVÉSZ: Debrecen lelki 45--47. is not necessarily a
direct source. For although Dávid calls him an eminent prophet in Rövid magyarázat, and
mentions his commentaries on Revelations, no profound influence can be shown. It would seem
particularly important that interpreting the motive of the binding of Satan Abbot Joachim follows
the Augustinian tradition while Dávid diverges from it. A more indirect inspiration can be
assumed through Restitutio as well. (For the +arbitrariness" of Dávid's interpretation, see Imre
BcN: Dante és a joachimizmus [Dante and Joachinism]. In: B. I.: Eszmék és stílusok. Irodalmi
tanulmányok [Ideas and styles. Literary essays]. Bp. 1976. 25.) Obviously, the visions of
Guillaume Postel, relying on a Platonic-Cabalistic tradition and influencing the Italian heretics at
most by his prophetic disposition, should be as a different type, and as to the Italian heretics like
Giorgio Siculo, Dávid's ideas can be related to theirs on the level of prophetic tenacity only.
27. This element is particularly powerful in the preface of Capito, SEIFERT: Reformation
und Chiliasmus 260--263. being entirely justified in regarding this as the decisive part of their
posterity leading as far as Alsted. Pointing out the presence of Cellarius, Castellio and Curione in
the 17th century heterodox movements could be the subject of a monographic study.
28. MAKKAI László: Dávid Ferenc és a népi reformáció Magyarországon [Ferenc Dávid
and the popular reformation in Hungary]. In: Természet és társadalom 114. 1955. 484--488. --
KLANICZAY Tibor: A magyar reformáció irodalma [The literature of Hungarian Reformation].
In: K. T.: Reneszánsz és barokk. Tanulmányok a régi magyar irodalomról [Renaissance and
Baroque. Essays on old Hungarian literature]. Budapest, 1961. 120.
29. +Ad postremum opinio de medio isto Christi adventu, multos alioqui securos satis, an
multo etiam securiores reditura sit, vereor: dum audient nondum instare iudicium illum extremum:
sed ventura prius aurea secula, in quibus omnes gentes et nationes in unam sint coagmentandae
religionem, atque altissima in terris pace, quieteque fruituare." De amplitudine 60.
30. Francisc PALL: Framantarile sociale si religioase din Cluj in jurul anului 1570. In:
Anuarul Institutului de Istorie din Cluj. V. 1962. 7--34. -- IDEM: Soziale und religiöse
Auseinandersetzungen in Klausenburg in der zweiten Hälfte des 16 Jh. und ihre polnisch
ungarischen Beziehungen In: La Renaissance et la Reformation en Pologne et en Hongrie. --
Renaissance und Reformation in Polen und in Ungarn. red. György SZÉKELY, Erik FÜGEDI,
Budapest 1963. 313--328.
31. Cf: József S. SZABL: Karácsony György tömegmozgalmának rugói [The springs of
György Karácsony's mass movement], in: Debreceni Szemle III. 1. 1929. 143--145. -- RÉVÉSZ:
Debrecen lelki válsága 180--203. -- Géza KATHONA: Karácsony György +szent hada" [The
+holy host" of Gy. K.], in Egyháztörténet IV. 1958. 265--280. -- Gusztáv HECKENAST: A
Karácsony György-féle parasztfelkelés 1569--1570 [The peasant rising of Gy.K., 1569--1570], in:
Történelmi Szemle VI. 1963. 19--21.
32. SANDIUS, Bibliotheca lists under No. 56 the following among the works of Dávid:
Epistola ad Ecclesias Polonicas, super questione de regno millenario Iesu Christi hic in terris.
Alba Iulia a. 1570. MS. [Epistle to the Polish churches on the millennial kingdom of Christ here
on earth.] For its further descriptions, see: RMNy App. No. 30. This, very correctly, says it is not
printed but a manuscript.
119

Back
V.
THE SOCIAL ETHICS OF THE ANTITRINITARIANS
+As much as possible" -- Imitatio Christi in the interpretation of Transylvanian Antitrinitarians
Unfortunately, limits of space keep us at this point from giving a detailed historiographical survey
of the various views formulated on the socio-ethical views of the Antitrinitarians. It has to be pointed out,
though, that with some simplification two different positions can be distinguished. One says that
Antitrinitarianism in Transylvania was from the moment of its beginnings a typical humanistic religion,
concentrating on criticism of dogmas and lacking a direct social program. This view has been most
marked in Unitarian ecclesiastical historiography, but it has been indirectly confirmed by Antal Pirnát's
book on the radical tendencies in dogma criticism in the 1570s, because it seemed natural to project these
tendencies back into the 1560s as well.1 The other view claims just the opposite, saying that the
Antitrinitarians formulated a much more radical social program than the representatives of the magisterial
Reformation. This view has been especially wide-spread in secular historiography and literary
historiography in Hungary, but the works of Delio Cantimori and his followers can, in some respect, also
be related to it, assuming a most organic harmony between the dogma criticism that regarded Christ as a
man and the notion of pauper Christus, based upon it.2 Below, in addition to endeavouring to show that
both views need closer scrutiny, we shall try to prove the following thesis: the socio-ethical views of the
Transylvanian Antitrinitarians in the 1560s were formulated in the language of Anabaptist
Antitrinitarianism, but the representatives of the Transylvanian leaders (first of all Ferenc Dávid and
Blandrata) significantly reinterpreted that tradition.
We shall try to show this partly by extending and reinterpreting the material considered so far, and
partly by taking a closer look at developments in the international and in the Polish scene, the latter being
crucially important in this respect.
The range of texts, naturally, can be extended in a very limited way only since most of the
Antitrinitarian works produced during the period under discussion were +sterile" debates on points of
dogma. It will be seen, however, that there was no room for clear-cut and unambiguous social demands in
the chiliastic daydreams of Rövid magyarázat, and both other works from 1567 are silent on that point as
well.
We have more texts though from 1568-69. We have first of all the following publications in mind:
the work entitled Antithesis pseudo Christi cum vero illo ex Maria nato,3 published at Gyulafehérvár in
1568, formulated Anabaptist socio-ethical doctrines very succinctly, forcefully and with a consistency
unmatched among Transylvanian publications. On the other hand, the completely independently worded
chapter concluding the first book of the crucially important De regno Christi (1569) under the title Notae
membrorum regni Christ should be mentioned, which lists in fifteen propositions the characteristics
necessary for the members of the kingdom of Christ.
Our analysis will start from these works, but later the Hungarian works of Ferenc Dávid and other
Eastern and Central European documents of the intellectual controversies will be considered as well. It
120

would seem proper to start with the treatise Notae membrorum in De regno Christi since, as it has been
mentioned, this was regarded as a representative piece by the Antitrinitarians themselves. (For the fifteen
propositions, see Appendix III.)
From the point of view of our present subject, we can ignore the propositions, interesting though
they may be in a different context, that record the principles of Antitrinitarian dogmatics (no.1) or that
discuss the questions of ecclesiology closely related to religious tolerance (nos. 2, 6, 9, 14.) It is conspicuous
that the following of Christ, which is defined by the fifth proposition as bearing the cross
voluntarily, gets a formulation different from that in the magisterial currents of the Reformation. The third
proposition unanimously declares: being born again means that one leaves one's bad morals for good.
Obviously we are in the vicinity of the Anabaptist ideas whose most extreme representatives believed that
moral perfection can be achieved during the life in this world, and even whose more moderate trends
were not satisfied with the reformed interpretation of imitatio Christi. The propositions expressly evoking
one or another moral postulate of the Anabaptists also point towards this philosophy. Thus the fifth calls
upon the members of the kingdom of Christ to pray for those who persecute and curse them. In a similar
fashion, the twelfth again contains the moral commandments of the Sermon of the Mount, interpreted
literally by the Anabaptists: the members of Christ's kingdom should be meek, peaceful, merciful, and the
sun should not set over their wrath.
The possibility offers itself to draw a parallel between these postulates and the Antithesis pseudo
Christi cum vero illo ex Maria nato. It is well known that Cantimori in his now classic monograph attributes
fundamental significance to this work, which interprets the Man Christ from political and social
aspects, and draws a very vivid vision of pauper Christ by contrasting the poor Christ and the rich
Antichrist. In this interpretation the little work is most organically related to Lelio Sozzini's Brevis
explicatio and the fundamental concept of De falsa et vera, as if providing a commentary on the doctrines
explained in these works.4
The first part of the work, already in its title, evokes the Anabaptist system of ideas based on
contrasting the few elect and the hostile world. On one side: Christus dives, quem Papa Antichristus cum
toto mundo sequitur (The rich Christ, who is followed by the Pope Antichrist along with the whole
world), on the other: Christus pauper, quem pii pauperes mundo exosi sequuntur (The poor Christ, who is
followed by the pious poor hated by the world). The contrast between these two Christs is made visible by
the layout of the publication, the attributes of the one and the other being printed on separate pages. Some
of these (especially the first three and the fifth antitheses) expressly list, and/or give a different colour to,
the typical arguments of Antitrinitarian dogma criticism: the rich Christ has existed from eternity, was
born from the essence of the Father, was always a great lord, did not grow in wisdom, did not flee from
Herod and the Jews, never suffered, etc. By contrast, the poor Christ was born on the earth during the
reign of the Emperor Augustus from a poor mother, Mary, he came into this world in a stable as a naked
child, did not even have a cradle, and grew in wisdom during the years because he was poor and weak,
suffered pains and persecutions, fled from Herod and the Jews. The emphasis on poverty and weakness
reveals, of course, the social motivation of the contrast already at this point, but this aspect is particularly
forceful in the rest of the ten contrasting pairs. There this is unanimously the dominant feature. The
environment of the rich Christ abounds in great lords, popes, cardinals, bishops, canons, emperors and
kings, who shower him with riches. The poor Christ never gets all this because lords never served him
because only the poor listened to the words of the gospel, his disciples came not from among the rich but
from among poor fishermen, and all this has not changed. The rich and eternally existing Christ has always
been surrounded with luxury and pomp, ornate palaces, altars, ceremonies. Therefore, he gave his
followers wealth and riches, towns, lands. And these were given not only to popes, bishops and canons
but also to priests and monks. Thus the whole world follows him because the way that he shows is simple.
His followers need not believe in anything, need not teach anything, apart from recognizing the pope and
his mass. On the other hand, the poor Christ never distributed worldly goods and treasures, never heard of
the pope, the cardinals and other deformities. He, like his faithful, often ate barley bread and often lived
121

on alms. Therefore, very few walk behind the poor Christ carrying the cross because the road he walks is
narrow and difficult.
If we consider that the antitheses sharply attack paedobaptism as well, we must admit that we have
here a work that synthesizes with peerless force the criticism of paedobaptism, Anabaptist social and
moral doctrines and Lelio Sozzini's Christology. This is something correctly emphasized by Cantimori,
but he saw no problem in the fact that this work was published in Transylvania, in the printing shop of
Gyulafehérvár. This, however, should be food for thought for anyone with an eye for Transylvanian
social and political conditions. That would explain why Antal Pirnát5 has announced his differing opinion
on the question of authorship. He firmly refuses to believe that the work was written by Blandrata,
arguing that no unanimous evidence supports the +Italian physician's" authorship. He says Sandius listed
this work along with several others under Blandrata's name because the latter had introduced
Antitrinitarianism in Transylvania. At the same time his analysis of Blandrata's remarkably wide-ranging
activities (concerning economics, politics, diplomacy and ecclesiastical politics), supported partially by
new documents, lead him to conclude that the moral and social tendency of Antithesis is completely alien
from the picture of Blandrata that can be reconstructed from the available data. He finds it difficult to
believe that one favoured in princely courts should be prophet of the poor Christ. He proposes to seek the
author among the collaborators of Blandrata, whom the church politician, open in all directions, permitted
to print even a work of such tendencies if they stayed within the limits of theoretical debates and did not
reach practical conclusions he would not have been able to accept. Pirnát obviously has some figures of
the Italian religious emigration in mind, who really most completely connected Antitrinitarianism and
Anabaptism.
These observations naturally point beyond the issue of authorship, but in any case it remains a fact
that Blandrata gave his permission to print the work. They are important in another respect as a warning:
the limits of the success of the Anabaptist socio-ethical views in Transylvania should be examined. While
Pirnát has pointed out such limitations in Blandrata's practical activities, we shall attempt to find details in
this work and in further publications and documents that in a certain sense moderate the message of this
extremely concentrated work and restrict its validity to a smaller field than it is usually supposed.
First let us see some of the characteristics of Antithesis that have evaded the scrutiny of scholars.
It should be mentioned by all means that this small work, though along with many other Transylvanian
Antitrinitarian publications, does not name its author, is an exception in that it drops the usual formula of
ministri et seniores ecclesiarum consentientium as well. This cannot be a coincidence and the assumption
would seem well-grounded that the work does not represent a position previously accepted and supported
by the representatives of the Transylvanian congregations. In such a sense the publishers of Antithesis
separated this work from the publications representing the +official" position.
It is a similarly unique trait that the work contains no dedication either. Apart from dispute theses
of synods, which obviously belong to a different genre, this is also a very rare occurrence among the
publications of Transylvanian Antitrinitarians.
Barna Nagy,6 recognizing the significance of Antithesis, has made a noteworthy observation: +We
regard this as one of the most interesting publications of Dávid and his followers, for it contains a
popular, social tension surpassing all the others: it is strange that it was published in Latin only for it
could have been even more influential in the language of the people." I, on the contrary, would think it is
not strange but, with the above facts in mind, quite natural that this work was published in Latin only. It
was not allowed to exert its influence in a wider circle, +in the language of the people". We must list the
language of the little work among the factors that restricted its validity and influence.
The literature on the subject regards the work as homogeneous and unified, neglecting the differences
among the various parts. For the publication consists of three parts: the theses mentioned above are
122

followed by a small insertion describing how God cleanses the true Christ of the ornaments that the
Antichrist had decorated him with. [Modus quem Deus in detrahendis...] This is obviously a concise
summary of the chapter Quomodo Christus instauret ecclesiam suam in De falsa et vera. This is followed
by seven new antitheses under the title Antithesis veri Christi cum falso Antichristo [Contrasting the true
Christ and the false Antichrist]. This contains the following contrasts: Hunc Deus promisit et dedit et
Apostoli praedicarunt [This is what God promised and gave, and the Apostles preached] Hunc
Antichristus per suos patres introduxit [This is what the Antichrist introduced through his church fathers].
It is especially important to pay attention to these because from the point of view of Antitrinitarian dogmatic
criticism in the strict sense they add nothing to Chapter I, simply repeating the details in that, but
rigidly refrain from details which can be interpreted in an explicitly social and political sense. In these the
difference between the two Christs is merely that one is eternal and the other has a beginning, one was not
conceived by the holy spirit and the other was, one grew in wisdom and was ordained but the other was
not.
It is, therefore, not without reason to ask the question: why was it necessary to attach the theses,
which mean nothing novel in a theological sense? This question may be substantiated by the fact that the
text in the third part appears in other publications as well. It is on record in the literature on the subject
that these seven propositions occur in De falsa et vera under the titles Legitimus Christus and Spurius
Christus.7 It is not so widely known that other Transylvanian publications also contain the contrasting
pairs in question in nearly the same or very similar formulations. They emerge in Ferenc Dávid's
Refutatio scripti Petri Melii (1567),8 and their nearly literal Hungarian translation is included in his
volume of sermons published in 1569.9
Thus, if we have a text from 1567 that is related to the second of the textual variants in Antithesis,
and if we can register a nearly identical passage from 1568, and if the Hungarian (!) version of the latter
was published in Ferenc Dávid's book of sermons in 1569, then it is not entirely without grounds to say
that the leaders of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians regarded the second variant as more significant, considering
it to be closer to their own position.
It is not surprising, therefore, that elements that do not fit at all into the thought of the
Transylvanian Antitrinitarians, as we know it from other sources, can be found exclusively in the first
one. We have seen how cautious they were regarding paedobaptism. There is no trace of caution here,
indeed, not only the raison d'etre of paedobaptism is called into question, but the fourth and seventh
contrasting pairs clearly evoke the practice of the Anabaptist wandering preachers who wandered on foot
and baptized their faithful in the fields. Entirely in harmony with it, further significant characteristics
appear that had achieved dominant roles in various Anabaptist movements by the middle of the century.
Just as in these movements it was a nearly general requirement that the believers take no state offices and,
being pacifists, bear no swords, so we can read among the attributes of the poor Christ that he has no
office to support him and there is no sword in his congregation. The publication under discussion several
times (Antitheses 7 and 9) condemns tithes, too, as something never heard of by the poor Christ and his
followers. The believers who thought of the +everyday bread" only, and were satisfied with the barley
bread they received as alms, did not want the +fat bread". It is difficult to believe that Ferenc Dávid and
his friends shared this demand.
The entire system of catholic liturgy receives a very vivid and remarkably forceful criticism in the
theses just considered. It cannot be ruled out that the leaders of Transylvanian Antitrinitarians sympathized
with that. They, however, can hardly be seen as accepting the consistent purism that discarded
agendas along with missals, that not only condemned papist luxury but was reluctant to set up permanent
shrines and rejected convoking the believers with bells.
The tenth proposition of the first part relates with unreserved intolerance to contemporary movements
of the Reformation and pre-Reformation. With the exclusivity of the Anabaptists who took on the
123

whole world, it sends the Lutheran Saxons, the Helvetians, the English, the Galls and Zwingli's followers
into the captivity of the Antichrist. Nor does it show understanding for +historical merits" since Jan Hus
and his followers also find themselves on this refuse dump. We have seen earlier that De falsa et vera did
not consider this question to be as simple as that, and the little treatise printed as the second unit of
Antithesis (Modus quem Deus...) also uses subtler wording by registering as facts the various phases of
the Reformation without critical comments of any kind.
It would seem, then, that the second and third parts of the tripartite Antithesis display signs of
being related to the dominant tendencies of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians. One might as well say that
these latter were made expressly for Transylvanian readers.
With all this we are, of course, not trying to question the basically Anabaptist conception of Notae
membrorum in De regno Christi, but the above considerations certainly justify the stress on details that
have remained in the background so far. It must not go without mentioning that the fifteenth proposition,
which is in a key position and sums up, as it were, those that precede it, having said that the Christian
man should be humble, tolerant, meek, without conceit, suffering everything, etc., invites the believers to
+follow as much as possible (italics mine, M.B.) the course of the humiliation of our Lord Jesus..." It
would seem that the phrase as much as possible is a key motive in the relationship between Transylvanian
Antitrinitarianism and Anabaptist socio-ethical views. It is a manifestation of the caution, observed
earlier, which identifies itself with the slogans of international Anabaptist Antitrinitarianism by leaching
them and/or taming them by making their inherent ethical maximalism relative.
This is particularly visible if with each thesis we see the way the given problem was treated in the
Antitrinitarianism in Poland. It is well-known that several ideologues of Polish Antitrinitarianism had
unanimously and permanently committed themselves to Anabaptist social doctrines from the mid-1560s,
and the fact that in some cases even members of the nobility were swept along testifies to the
stubbornness of the propaganda.10
The thirteenth proposition says the following: the members of the kingdom of Christ obey the
magistrate, are not idle and work with their own hands. Although this shows definite relationship with the
thought of Grzegorz Pawel and his friends, it is remarkable how much more pointedly the same issue is
raised by them. The following is a passage from the protocols of the synod held at Pelsznica in October
1568. +It was no small matter that Grzegorz with some of his friends proposed, and Czechowic with
those from Kujaw was not far from it either, that the ministers should give up the parishes, in which they
lived off the works of others, and they should earn their living with the work of their own hands. And
they also said to the nobles and the brethren that it is not well that you eat bread from the sweat of the
subjects, and you should do it yourselves. And it is not well that you live in houses your predecessors
were given for spilling blood. So sell your wealth of this kind and distribute it among the poor. Some
agreeing and others objecting, they parted in love having decided nothing."11 Jakób z Kalinówki, who
later would come to Polonia Minor along with a number of his friends to join the Anabaptist community,
had used a very similar wording at the synod held in Iwie, Lithuania, in January of the same year.12
These declarations make it quite clear that the Transylvanians were much more careful with their
words. For the Polish brethren, although refraining to sharpen the issue, defined even the limits of
obedience to the magistrate: their consistent pacifism led them to preach that offices should not be obeyed
if they order the taking up of arms. In that case they were ready to patiently suffer the retaliation. Now,
this is something Blandrata and his followers never advised to the members of Christ's kingdom, nor did
they set conditions for obedience to the magistrate for that would clearly have been a suicidal move
jeopardizing the entire movement. We should remember that military service in Transylvania was not the
privilege of the nobility but was compulsory for practically all the layers of the society. In addition to the
Szeklers, burdened with personal compulsory military service, in case of a war town dwelling burgesses
were also obliged to contribute military contingents of a certain size, what is more, a part of the villeins
124

were also called up for service. Under such circumstances and in the political conditions in Transylvania
Antitrinitarianism, which intended to become an established religion, could not afford to proclaim
pacifism, and the second requirement of the thirteenth proposition also appears rather careful compared to
the words of Grzegorz Pawel or Jakób z Kalinówki. For it is not declared in detail that everybody,
including church and state leaders, has to earn a living with their own hands.
Perhaps the difference will have become clear. On the one hand, there was the rather carefully
worded pious desire in the Latin treatise they never attempted to realize and, on the other, there were the
passionate debates on the practicability of the program and the requests directed at the noble brethren to
distribute their wealth among the poor. And it cannot be ignored in this context that existing in
brotherhood had become and intensive experience in the ecclesia minor in Poland: its members, evidently
after the example of Moravian and other Anabaptist communities called themselves Polish brethren
(bracia polscy).
With these developments in mind the eighth proposition will be particularly telling in a negative
sense since, as if illustrating the importance of the phrase as much as possible emphasized above, it
formulates the banal commonplace that servants should serve their lords honestly and faithfully, everyone
should do their jobs well, and should not interfere in the business of others. The postulate of the
immediate distribution of possessions declared in Poland is contradicted by the propositions that urge
merely charitable activities: looking after the poor, widows and orphans, giving alms (no. 7, 11, 12). And
just like their sixteenth century fellow preachers, they encourage their faithful -- obviously mostly their
noble or wealthy burgess believers -- to be diligent in advancing the cause of the church (no.7). Neither
did it mean any unusual radicalism that in the second half of the eleventh proposition they demand of the
members of Christ's kingdom an administration of justice +without respect to persons". Indeed, this
makes clear that the judges who administer justice, that is are holding offices, are also members of this
kingdom. Thus they do not simply prescribe passive obedience to the magistrate, but the exercise of
official powers is compulsory for those whose job is to administer justice. If we remember that
proposition 14 emphasizes that no one is to be sentenced to death for their religion, this would seem to
imply the recognition of justified capital punishment for other crimes.
We will reach a similar conclusion after considering Ferenc Dávid's Hungarian book af sermons.
Of course, he often condemns the rich, who look down on poor Lazaruses, spend their wealth on drinking
and wedding feasts and cast not even a morsel to the poor. This critique, however, avoids ethical
maximalism, Dávid's words voicing the harmony of bourgeois moderation and neighbourly charity
towards the poor. It is characteristic that Dávid rejects only trading as something closely undefined, while
Grzegorz Pawel condemns with harsh words all kinds of profiteering.13
Summing up, we can say that the Anabaptist socio-ethical views in the period under consideration
appeared in a strongly reinterpreted, tamed form in the ideology of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians. It is
important to emphasize, however, that they did appear, and the leaders of the movement formulated their
ideas in a way that they maintained the common language with their more radical coreligionists in Poland
and elsewhere. This needs special emphasis because the Hungarian literature on the subject has ignored
this fact so far. Obviously, at the same time, the fact of reinterpretation, which includes also the debate
with the movements culminating in the experiment at Raków, is also very significant. For the whole
series of propositions encourages the believers to meet the moral requirements of the Gospels while
remaining within the world. Lech Szczucki14 was the first to consider the propositions of Notae
membrorum regni Christi and the postulates of the preachers of the ecclesia minor in Poland simultaneously
for the first time in the literature on the subject. We propose to modify his assessment saying that
what we have here is not an analogy but a rather ambivalent relationship.
125

Analogies and differences in the thought of Transylvanian and Polish Antitrinitarians
While discussing the socio-ethical views of the Antitrinitarians in Poland and Transylvania we did
not touch upon the problem of whether there was a debate amongst them about these issues. We could
hardly have done so since the sources we have from the period between 1566 and 1569 are mostly silent
about them. Practically all we know is that in January 1568 Blandrata warned the Polish brethren to give
testimony of righteousness and piety by living among people.15 From 1571, however, we have a letter that
allows a glimpse into these intellectual controversies. The letter from Cracow was written by Elias
Gczmidele,16 who had come to Kolozsvár in 1569 to be the preacher of the Saxon congregation there.
Shortly, however, he had to leave the town, and the purpose of his apologetic epistle to Gáspár Heltai,
himself the author and publisher of works of importance in Hungarian, was to answer the charges that
Heltai had brought up against him partly with Conrad Eisenschneider of Cracow partly with the people in
Kolozsvár and which had been the cause of his forced return to Cracow. He says he held no grudge
against Heltai and his friends for having to leave town since he felt no calling to preach among them.
Although he admits that the Transylvanians' teaching about God and baptism cannot be disproved with
the help of the Scriptures, he misses the inner testimony of the holy Spirit (das innerliche Zeugnis des
geistes Gotts), which would authorize him to accept and preach these teachings. Not really explaining his
apologetic spiritualism, he argues for its main tenets by listing biblical passages: historical faith
(Historischer Glaube) and external knowledge (Eusserliche Erkentnis) are not sufficient, the revelation of
the inner teaching (die Offenbarung der innerlichen Lehre) is also necessary. He also claims that this
inner revelation is given independently of the Scripture and though one may know the Bible by heart, it is
all in vain, one cannot have true knowledge of God without this Afflatus or Offenbarung.
His statements are much more controversial concerning the charge that he demanded the
introduction of community of property at Kolozsvár and that he declared that no Christian man could
claim even a pfennig as his own with good conscience. He partly denies this, and partly says he said that
from the pulpit in order to rid himself of his position as a preacher, which he was feeling burdensome. He
explains that he disapproves of the practice of the Moravian brethren, of whom he had learnt in Cracow,
because they force their followers to give up their property. Thus, although admitting that there can be a
Christian congregation without giving up property while, he believes property still has to be given up but
of one's free will and not through force (sol aus freyen Gemuth kommen, vnd nicht ein gezwungen ding
sein). This is reminiscent of the practice of the Poles, who were obliged to tolerate the +noble brethren"
but he may not have used this same wording at all in Kolozsvár. We cannot be very far from the truth
when we say that such practical formulation of the Anabaptist doctrines was enough for Heltai and his
associates to regard him as the subverter of the church.
The issue of the Turks is similarly obscure in the letter. Heltai says Gczmidele preached that since
Turks are the greatest power in the world, no one can fight against them. The preacher, on the other hand,
claims that he said nothing on the issue of +offices". Still, he must have said something because later he
himself admits that he has told the Poles he had to leave Transylvania on account of issues concerning
community of property and offices.
It would not be difficult to find analogues to what he says about the Turks in the assorted currents
of Anabaptism, especially in the eschatological ideas of Hans Hut and his associates, but it is also
possible that this view was formulated by Heltai, drawing the consequences of the Anabaptist position on
offices. For it would seem that Heltai is not averse to using topical arguments against the Anabaptists.
Gczmidele had to defend himself from charges, for instance, that he claimed husbands and wives did not
have to be faithful to one another. This was a recurring accusation since Münster, based obviously on the
Anabaptist doctrine of refraining from taking oaths. Gczmidele also admits to as much only referring, in
the usual way, to Mt 5:37: +Ewer reden sey ia ia, Nein Nein, was druber ist, das ist von Bösen." [But let
your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil]
126

There was one more interesting, and for Heltai, shocking doctrine that our preacher expounded at
Kolozsvár. He does not deny preaching there the view, unacceptable for Polish Antitrinitarians as well,
that God was the cause of sin. We do not know very much about this doctrine, which he himself said was
unique. It would appear that unlike Tamás Arany and his examples it was not the nature, the theological
status of sin that he found interesting. All that can be made out from his short explanation is that he was
concerned with the relationship between divine determination and human possibilities.
Interpreting these views, Pall17 applied the well-known dichotomy of bourgeois reformation-popular
reformation, finding Gczmidele's intellectual relatives in Tamás Arany and György Karácsony,
the Hungarian representatives of the latter. He also assumed that the ideas of the turned out preacher had
met with a strong response among the poorer inhabitants, especially among the craftsmen, of Kolozsvár.
Antal Pirnát,18 on the other hand, denies that one can talk about the sharpening of social
differences in the case of Kolozsvár since one of the characteristics of the Reformation there that the
conflicts occasionally still arising did not take the form of religious movements. Accordingly, Pirnát
would not admit the existence of the widespread popular reformation, Gczmidele's case also proving for
him how ephemeral and exceptional a phenomenon was the preaching of Anabaptist socio-ethical
doctrines in Transylvania.
It may have appeared from the above that our position is close to that of Pirnát. However, the
works and ideas so far considered would move one not to regard the thoughts put forward by Gczmidele
as entirely unique and exceptional. The way, the sharpness and the practicality these ideas were raised
with is indeed exceptional, but all the elements of his position, save the proposition that +God is the cause
of sin" comes from the same ideas that Dávid and his associates drew upon. Rövid útmutatás contains a
paler version of his strong spiritualism, and the doctrines he preached at Kolozsvár and those he admitted
to in the letter all come from that common thought. Except Dávid and his friends would not take these
doctrines in such a form but reinterpreted them first in the manner described above.
Ferenc Dávid's work Az egy a magától való felséges Istenral, published in 1571, allows us a
glimpse into the mechanism of this reinterpretation. For it can be shown that this work of the
Transylvanian Antitrinitarian greatly depends upon Grzegorz Pawel's work Rozdzial Starego Testamentu
od Nowego, indeed, Chapter Two of the Hungarian work may be regarded as the translation or paraphrase
of certain parts of the Polish work. This, so far unknown relationship is very important since the work of
the Polish Antitrinitarian published in 1568 formulates the Anabaptist socio-ethical views in a very
concentrated and forceful way. A comparison thus would seem to be useful although it will be rather
sketchy since we will have to dispense with lengthily quoting Hungarian and Polish passages and a
stylistic examination as well. (The intellectual historically most relevant Polish and Hungarian passages
are summed up in a table in an earlier work of mine.)19
The correspondences between the two texts can be described the following way:
Rozdzial Az egy a magától
A -- A4r --
A4v -- F3r C2v -- H4v
F3v -- I2v --
I3r -- K4r F3v -- I2v
127

K4v -- N3r --
N3r -- N4r K3v -- Lr
Thus Dávid omits the preface, which recorded the fundamental design of the work, and the
comments, which pointed out the main themes. Instead of these, he repeats the long known hermeneutical
principle that the starting point of the interpretation of the Old Testament should be the New. After all
these he takes the Polish text of the first theme proclaimed before, discussing the differences between the
two Testaments, and goes on to follow it with minor changes and omissions till the end of the first part.
He completely cuts the second part, which relates that Christ, the perfect Rabbi, completely abolished the
Law and has put the Gospel in its place. Finally, Dávid borrows only certain passages from the third part,
which describes the lies of the Antichrist. All this renders the undertaking somewhat mysterious since in
the first part, which Dávid employed in a decisive degree, he as translator met precisely those ideas that
he already knew from the Socinian explanations of John's Gospel and from Servet's main work, and that
he himself had already undertaken to match much earlier. Therefore, one is made to wonder whether in
addition to a more forceful wording of the same theological message the choice was motivated also by the
church criticism relying on that.
It can be established without question that the omission of Chapter Two in itself significantly reduced
the social charge of the original since it is there that the ethics based on Chapter Five of the Gospel
of Matthew is displayed in its entirety. Insisting on the literal interpretation, he recalls the well-known
maximalist postulates. Besides absolute pacifism, which prohibited even killing heathens, what is
particularly interesting for us is that according to Grzegorz, while in the Old Testament only false oaths
were forbidden, the New allows taking no oaths whatsoever. He is very emphatic in condemning the
practice, which he thinks is based on Jewish laws, that one can release one's wife for any small reason. He
says in the New Testament one has to live even with an unfaithful wife, and goes on to lengthily describe
the polygamy brought into fashion by both the Turks and the Antichrist. But perhaps his most interesting
statement is that a significant part of the psalms goes against the teachings of Christ.
The third part, the plan of which has been outlined above, need not be described here in detail
either. I would merely refer to a few details of this mercilessly sharp debate, which are directed not only
against the Catholic Church. Thus, having said that in the New Testament the believers are God's temples,
he declares that Christ and the Apostles administered baptism, communion and preached in the fields and
in common houses. Grzegorz Pawel, who is permeated with spiritualistic ideas, does not think much of
Protestant services either because he believes that just as with the Papists the eyes of the flock were
dazzled with the mass and ceremonies, so in the +present congregations" the ears of the members are
entertained with continuous preaching. According to him, neither, of course, serves their spiritual
edification. The Polish Antitrinitarian, unrestrained in his condemnation of luxury, ceremonies,
processions, card playing, dancing, drinking, etc, here also very harshly draws a parallel between
churches and pubs, saying in both people sacrifice to the god Baal, in one in both kind, by partaking of
bread and wine in the morning, in the other in one kind, taking the wine only, in the evening. More
important is, however, that the disappearance of +without respect to person" in Christ's congregation not
only results in the disappearance of popes, cardinals, monks, etc., and it means not merely the end of the
distinction between Jew and Gentile, man and woman, but that between lord and servant as well.
So Ferenc Dávid omitted these larger textual units, but the Anabaptist ethical system of norms
was naturally present in those textual units of the Polish work which he did use. In such cases he
reworded and thus reinterpreted the text of Grzegorz Pawel. The crucial point in the rewording might be
the interpretation of Chapter 5 of Matthew. The Polish Antitrinitarian, who insisted on a literal reading,
held that those who did not accept this interpretation confused the Law and the Gospel, and thus these
servants of the Antichrist completely falsified the Gospel. These harsh words are always tempered by
128

Dávid, who says that the Catholics and the Protestants mostly interpret the Gospel in a false way.20 In
other cases he simply omits the sentences that contain ethical postulates unacceptable for him. Thus he
does not mention the prohibition of taking oath, nor does he include the sentences in which the Polish
Antitrinitarian forbids the bearing of swords. He also rewords the passages on coming out of the
Babylonian captivity. Grzegorz Pawel very harshly declares that those who want to live in Christ's church
must severe connections with all those who preach erroneous doctrines. Indeed, the Polish Antitrinitarian
comes very near to criticizing the process of the purification of the church, which appears so logical in De
falsa et vera. He writes that the demolition of the house of the Antichrist is so hard because it was not
begun at the foundations. The Antichrist, on the other hand, knew how to start everything at the
foundation. Dávid does not borrow these ideas, using the wordings well-known from De falsa et vera.
It is also very interesting how the rejection of purgatory is linked up with the Anabaptist doctrine
of the sleeping soul in the work of the Polish Antitrinitarian. The Polish literature on the subject regards
this as an important argument for attributing to Grzegorz Pawel this remarkably exciting work, which
discusses the state of the soul after death. Indeed, several parts of Rodzial are reminiscent of the thoughts
contained in the work entitled O prawdziwiej smierci, zmartwychwstaniu i zywocie wiecznym [On true
death, resurrection and eternal life].21 According to the plan explicated in it, the soul is inseparable from
the body, and thus when the body is dead, the soul cannot be obliged to wait for resurrection in the
purgatory. There is a tendency of very strong church criticism in the treatise, which uses the metaphorical
interpretation of a number of biblical passages, especially Lk 23:43, in its argument. It explains more than
once that the Antichrist invented the soul that exists separately from the body as well in order to facilitate
the collection of even greater riches.22
Thus, it is very important that Ferenc Dávid, by omitting these passages as well, refrained from
making use of a typically Anabaptist proposition.
On the other hand, it is unquestionable that the ideas that are borrowed from Grzegorz Pawel --
the denouncing of wealth and luxury, the exposure of Catholic and Protestant superstitions -- render the
work of Ferenc Dávid linguistically also very forceful. The sharp wording he uses in this work was
inconceivable earlier. Albeit this criticism is directed against the dogmas, ceremonies and morals of the
Catholic Church and of the various Protestant denominations, the change in tone is worth noting anyway.
It would also seem logical that this change be related with the Könyvecske and Büchlein considered
above, which were the first works to formulate the (although mostly theoretical) requirement of rebaptism
in the vernacular. This change of tone may also be related to the fact that the Antitrinitarian
missions started developing in territories outside Transylvania (mainly in Turkish occupied areas). These
missions were trying to convert mostly Calvinist congregations and thus were more ready to use
+sharper" weapons than before.
Of course, this phenomenon could be interpreted properly only with a detailed knowledge of the
dialogue between the ecclesia minor in Poland and Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism. Even with the lack
of sufficient data we can say that while a dislike of Anabaptist ethical maximalism continued to be dominant
in Ferenc Dávid's thought, similar details had become more frequent at least in the criticism of opponents.
However, it would not be amiss to consider other representatives of Polish Antitrinitarianism in
order to make the picture more complete. The fact that in Poland the Anabaptist doctrines appeared more
pointedly meant that the positions refining or polemizing with them were more clearly outlined. These
positions can be relevant for us even if none of them can be entirely identified with that of the
Transylvanians.
In that respect, the little work written around 1570 and known in the literature on the subject under
the title Traktat przeciwko +kommunistom" morawskim [Treatise against the Moravian +communists"]23
makes very exciting reading. A consideration is made even more justified by the recent hypothesis
of Szczucki saying its authors should be looked for among people who had supported the rapprochement
129

with the Hutterites in the beginning.24 The first sentence of the work hurries to point out that it does not
wish to speak out against the New Testament, it merely condemns the practices of the Moravian sect. The
subsequent criticism contains a few details that are not so relevant for the present discussion. It is notable
that they were visibly averse to the Hutterite requirement that whoever joined them should completely
break with the world and offer all their possessions to the community. The idea, often repeated in the
work, that turning away from the world contradicts real Christian charity, appears already here.
Proceeding along this line, the work not only condemns sects but legitimizes principles, which can be
made to harmonize with the propositions of Notae membrorum. By interpreting a number of biblical
passages, it proves that the early Christian congregations did not have community of property, and it
doubts that anybody should surpass the teachings of the Bible without some special divine calling. The
author states that Jesus never taught that those with a profession, either rich or poor, living in their own
houses or on their own estates with their wives, grandparents and friends, cannot be Christians. And
against the distribution of one's possessions, he formulates the somewhat frivolous but practical argument
that if one distributes all his wealth at once, he cannot meet the commandment of giving alms.
On the other hand, we can mention Syzmon Budny,25 who would later make a name for himself
by interpreting the relation between the Old and the New Testaments in a way quite different from
Grzegorz Pawel, and by developing a special kind of universalism, different from that of Palaeologus.
According to the evidence of the above-mentioned passage in the protocols of the synod at Iwie, he did
not as yet employ the dominance of the Old Testament as an argument, although elements of the later
system do occur here and there, but used the metaphorical interpretation of crucial passages in the New
Testament, trying to contradict the maximalism of Jakób z Kalinówki by evoking the practice of the early
Christians. In this latter respect there is even a similarity between him and the former treatise. Like the
good philologist he was, interpreting Lk 12:32-33 he introduces a grammatical argument to prove that the
passage does not mean a single donation. The correct Polish translation, he says, is not +Przedajcie, co
trzymacie, a dajcie jalmuzne" (sell that ye have, and give alms), but +Przedawajcie, co trzymacie, a
dawajcie jalmuzne" (Sell that ye have little by little and keep giving alms). Budny was, of course, firmly
against the radical ideas represented by his opponents at this synod, and he spells out clearly what he
means by following the commandments of the gospels: +Denying all our possessions does not mean that
we throw away or sell everything, but that we are ready to sacrifice for Christ all our wealth, riches,
reputation, office, friends, even life and will not be torn or frightened away from him."26
Neither the treatise nor Budny hold the same views as the Transylvanians. The former, the
criticism notwithstanding, displays some understanding towards the endeavours of the Moravians, and
Budny's reasoning already contains the idea that the commandments of the New Testament were
compulsory for the days of the Apostles only. The emphasis on charismatic deeds, on alms and moving
away from the literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount was notable also from the point of view
of the Transylvanians. Thus these have been referred to not as analogies but examples that say something,
if indirectly, about the ideas of the Transylvanians as well.
Lack of sufficient data prevents us from determining the place of the Transylvanian
Antitrinitarians among all the varieties of Anabaptist tendencies in Eastern Central Europe in the second
half of the 1560s. The idea, though, would seem reasonable that the closed communities of the Moravians
on the one hand, and Ferenc Dávid and his associates on the other, should be regarded as the two
extremes of these movements. The tendencies in Poland, which culminated in Raków, the +continuous
synoding" there (which, however, never resulted in the introduction of community of property, but meant
the dissolution of all +discipline"), Czechowic and his followers, who were the first to leave the town, and
finally those who, perhaps closest to the Transylvanians, tried to moderate the sectarian efforts by looking
for compromises (these were first of all Stanislaw Lutomirski and his associates) would all be placed
somewhere between them.27
Naturally, the interpretation of the Eastern Central European typology just described depends to a
130

great extent on what interpretation of European Anabaptism we hold acceptable. It is well-known that
while the reformers regarded the Anabaptists as subverters of the established order, modern scholarship
has developed a very forceful apologetic tendency that has attempted to clear them of these charges. This
tendency, relying on the famous book of Ernst Troeltsch,28 and alive mostly in Mennonite ecclesiastical
historiography, has attempted to elaborate a typology that would make +proper" Anabaptism distinguishable.
It is this Anabaptism, cleansed from Münzer and Münster, spiritualism and Antitrinitarianism,
chiliasm and social radicalism that they set up to regard as their own tradition, adding to it attributes such
as consistent biblicism, pacifism, separation of state and church, tolerance, etc. that would simultaneously
show its loyalty, moral sublimity and modernity.29 This view has been criticized not only by
marxists.30 From the mid-1970s an increasing number of works have questioned that the genesis of
Anabaptism was independent of Münzer31 as well as the possibility of separating pure
Anabaptism.32 These works have pointed out, very correctly, that Anabaptism even after Münster, though
definitely tamed, still contained very dangerous tendencies. Founding autonomous religious communities,
the efforts to restore the congregation of saints without compromises, and the pacifist slogans all
disguised elements of social critique that sometimes emerged in harsher forms.33 It is true, however, that
in Eastern Central Europe this can be proved mainly for Polish Anabaptist Antitrinitarianism. No one today
regards Grzegorz Pawel and his associates as representatives of an antifeudal social revolution, but
their ideas, their doctrine as a whole, and particularly the steps they took to put them into practice were in
many respects radical. It can be disputed to what extent the movement they represented, which, as
Williams34 has shown, established connection with other Anabaptist groups besides the Moravians, was
dangerous for itself in its sectarian efforts, and to what extent it jeopardized Polish Antitrinitarianism as a
whole.35 There can be interpretations that explain the expression of plebeian efforts in such extremities
precisely with their weakness, especially with the weakness of the market-towns in Poland.36 There is no
doubt, however, that the Anabaptist doctrines, in the form that Grzegorz Pawel and his followers formulated
them, threatened to disrupt the established social framework.
In Transylvania it was different. There were no signs that Ferenc Dávid and his associates would
attach themselves to the Anabaptist traditions that had appeared earlier sporadically in the Hungarian
Reformation. Nor did the way they formulated and preached the Anabaptist doctrines intertwined with
Antitrinitarianism include elements that would subvert the social hierarchy. However radical the
consequences contained in the ideas they relied on, these did not materialize through an application in
Transylvania. And even if is safe to say that Antitrinitarianism represented most consistently the
requirement of +semper reformandi" with respect to dogma criticism, it also needs to be pointed out that
in its social critique it moved away from the legacy of the first generation of the Hungarian Reformation.
An ethic code, based on the Sermon on the Mount, and taken really seriously, could be used to create +a
separate world", a protest by its mere existence. In the form employed by the Transylvanians, however, it
became merely an accommodating ideology.
Pushing the Old Testament into the background also had serious consequences. The heated social
criticism of the previous generation, their +crying word", which exposed evil princes, anarchy and abuses
of the law, was to a considerable degree supported by the world of the Old Testament and by their
consciously undertaking the role of prophets.
This tradition was continued not by Ferenc Dávid but doubtlessly by Péter Melius. In his works he
harshly denounced and threatened the merciless lords with the wrath of the avenging God.37 But, while
hurling the curses of the Old Testament prophets at them, his and his associates' uncontrollable passion
was most organically intertwined with an intolerant dogmatism that demanded the punishment of
Antitrinitarians.
Historiography has yet to explain the socio-historical circumstances of this phenomenon. For the
fact that the Antitrinitarian leaders wanted to lead their ideas to triumph with the assistance of princes
and/or noble patrons is only a partial explanation since the Calvinists were trying to do the same. We may
131

each deeper if we refer to the archaic and undeveloped state of the Transylvanian social structure, a fact
that historiography has been aware of for some time. It is a hard fact that while Partium developed a
whole network of rich market-towns, nothing like that happened in Transylvania. And it was precisely the
peasant-burgess communities (the strongest in Debrecen) that became the most important workshops for
Helvetian Reformation. These communities at the same time were constantly endangered partly by the
always changing political situation and partly by the military advance of the Turks. Thus the +crying
word", which scourged anarchy, the prophetic protection of the interests of communities, would be a
pressing necessity for a long time. The situation was different in Transylvania, which was more archaic
but politically more consolidated at the time of the advance of Antitrinitarianism. The Antitrinitarians, in
addition to the support of the leaders of the nobility, managed to secure that of the bourgeois, which was
mostly under the influence of Kolozsvár. It appears that they could accept the Antitrinitarianism that
blended dogma criticism with socio-ethical doctrines of Anabaptist origins, tempered into meekness,
peacefulness and middle-class moderation. This was complemented by the preaching of religious
tolerance, the subject of the following chapter.
132

1. For its most marked formulation, see László MAKKAI: Reformation und
Sozialrevolution im historischen Ungarn. In: Sozialrevolution und Revolution. Aufsätze zur
Vorreformation, Reformation und zu den Bauernkriegen in Südmitteleuropa. ed. Peter F.
BARTON. Wien--Köln--Graz 1975. 23--24. (+Sein eigentlicher Kern ist die sich von Ficino über
Camillo Renato bis zu Servet hinziehende Gedankenlinie einer neoplatonischer
Religionsphilosophie. Diese typische Humanistenreligon hatte den Bauern nicht viel zu sagen
gehabt. Sie enthbehrte auch eines unmittelbaren konkreten sozialen Programmes.")
2. MARCHETTI: La storiografia 378--380.
3. Described in RMNY 245. Published in: Delio CANTIMORI--Elisabeth FEIST: Per la
storia degli eretici italiani del secolo XVI in Europa. Roma 1937. 95--103. and Mihály BALcZS:
Az erdélyi antitrinitarizmus az 1560-as években [Transylvanian Unitarianism in the 1560s].
Budapest 1988. 224--229.
4. CANTIMORI, Eretici italiani 327--328. This view has been formulated most clearly
recently by ROTONDL, Calvino e gli antitrinitarii 82.: +Nella forma efficacissima del libello di
propaganda che ricorda la Prothesis di Gentile, il Blandrata ha semplificato il contenuto della De
falsa et vera... cognitione nell' Antithesis pseudo Christi cum vero illo ex Maria nato..."
5. Antal PIRNcT: Per una nuova interpretazione dell'attivitá di Giorgio Biandrata. In:
Rapporti veneto-ungheresi 361--371.
6. NAGY: Méliusz Péter 246.
7. De falsa et vera Ff2v--Ff4r., 344--347.
8. Refutatio scripti Petri Melii B4r-v.
9. Elsa része... predicatiocnac... 99v.
10. The following works should be mentioned from the literature on this issue: Stanislaw
KOT: Ideologia polityczna i spoleczna Braci Polskich zwanych arianami. Warszawa 1932. (In
English: Socinianism in Poland. The Social and Political Ideas of the Polish Antitrinitarians in
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Boston 1957.) -- Waclaw URBAN: Chlopi wobec
reformacji w Malopolsce w drugiej polowie XVI wieku. Kraków 1959. -- IDEM: Praktyczna
dzialalnosc Braci Polskich wobec chlopów. ORP V. 1960. 109--126. -- SZCZUCKI: Marcin
Czechowic 77--85. -- Stanislaw TWOREK: Raków osrodkiem radykalizmu arianskiego 1569-72.
In: Raków ognisko arianizmu. ed. Stanislaw CYNARSKI. Kraków 1968. 69--80. -- IDEM: Raków
w okresie nieustajacego synodu (1569--1572). In: Wokól dziejów i tradycji arianizmu. ed. Lech
SZCZUCKI. Warszawa 1971. 67-75. -- Janusz TAZBIR: Miejsce Rakowa w ruchu arianskim. In:
Wokól dziejów 43--65.
11. +Byla i to sprawa niemala, ze Grzegorz i z niektórymi inszymi, a niedaleko byl
Czechowic i z swymi Kujawiany od tej sentencyjej, zeby ministrowie polozyli takie, na których z
cudzej prace zyja, ale zeby sobie chleb zarabiali swymi rekami. Takze slachcie i braciej mówili,
ze sie wam nie godzi chleba jesc z potu ubogich poddanych swych, ale sami sóbcie. Takze nie
godzi sie wam mieszkac na takich majetnosciach, które przodkom waszym nadano za rozlanie
krwie. Przedawajcie tedy takie majetnosci, a rozdajcie ubogim. Na co jedni zezwalali, a drudzy sie
sprzeciwiali, i tak w tej mierze nic nie konkludowawszy, w milosci sie rozjechali" Akta synodów
II. 221.
133

12. Quoted in: Szymon BUDNY: O urzedzie miecza uzywajacem. ed. Stanislaw KOT.
Warszawa 1931. 182.
13. Elsa része... predicatiocnac... 51v., 177v.
14. Lech SZCZUCKI: Antytrynitarizm w Europe wshodniej. ORP XXIV. 1979. 168. --
IDEM: Polish and Transylvanian 235--236.
15. LUBIENIECKI: Historia reformationis 240.
16. For his imperfectly known activities, see Bibliotheca Dissidentium XII. 151--158.
(Antal PIRNcT). The letter was published in: Samuil GOLDENBERG: Framintari sociale si
religioase la Cluj oglindite intro scrisoare din 1571. In: Anuarul Institutului de Istorie din Cluj I--
II. 1958--1959. 371--373.
17. PALL: Framantarile 7--34. -- IDEM: Soziale und religiöse 313--328.
18. PIRNcT: Die Ideologie 29--32. and Bibliotheca Dissidentium XII. 151.
19. BALcZS: Az erdélyi antitrinitarizmus 229--237.
20. Rozdzial C4r. -- Az egy a magától való F2r-v.
21. Its facsimile edition, edited by Konrad GLRSKI and Wladyslaw KURASKIEWICZ:
Wroclaw 1954.
22. For the sources and the European context see: GóRSKI: Grzegorz Pawel 234--240. --
Leszek KOLAKOWSKI: Refleksje niefachowe nad Grzegorzem Pawlem i niesmiertelnoscia
duszy. In: Twórczosc 9. 1955. -- Lech SZCZUCKI: Z problemów eschatalogii arianskiej w Polsce
XVI. wieku. In: Studia i materialy z dziejów nauki polskiej 4. 1956. 135--163.
23. A more recent and available edition: Filozofia i mysl spoleczna XVI wieku. ed. Lech
SZCZUCKI. Warszawa 1978. 317--332.
24. KOT: Ideologia polityczna 24--35, holds the author was Stanislaw Budzinski, a friend
of Budny and Palaeologus. SZCZUCKI's hypothesis is in the introduction of Filozofia i mysl 317.
25. On him, see Bibliotheca Dissidentium T. XIII. 9--94. (Zdsislaw PIETRZYK)
26. +A tak wyrzec sie wszytkiego, nie jest porzucic wszytko, ani przedac, ale gotowym
byc wszelakie majetnosci, bogatctwa, szci, urzedy, przyjacioly, nawet i zywot dla Chrystusa
Bozego i nauki jego porzucuc i dac je sobie zabrac, ale jego samego nie dac sobie wydrzec, ani od
niego dac odstraszyc." BUDNY, O urzedzie miecza 204.
27. See SZCZUCZKI: Antytrynitarizm w Europie 167.
28. Ernst TROELTSCH: Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen.
Tübingen 1911.
29. Three works, giving somewhat different typologies, from the enormous literature:
Heinold FAST: Der linke Flügel der Reformation. Glaubenzeugnisse der Täufer, Spiritualisten,
Schwärmer und Antitrinitarier. Bremen 1962. -- WILLIAMS: The Radical Reformation --
134

Clarence BAUMANN: Gewaltlosigkeit im Täufertum. Eine Untersuchung zur theologischen Ethik
des oberdeutschen Täufertums der Reformationszeit. Leiden 1968.
30. The following two works are the most important: Gerhard ZSCHÄBITZ: Zur
mitteldeutschen Wiedertäuferbewegung nach dem großen Bauernkrieg. Berlin 1958. -- Aleksandr
N. TSCHISTOSWONOW: Die soziale Basis und der historische Ort des revolutionaren
Täufertums. In: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl Marx Universität 14. 1965. 407--418.
31. Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525--1975. Neue Forschungen ed. Hans-Jürgen GOERTZ.
Göttingen 1975. -- James M. STAYER--Werner O. PACKULL--Klaus DEPPERMANN: From
Monogenesis to Polygenesis. The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins. In: The Mennonite
Quarterly Review 49. 1975. 83--122.
32. James M. STAYER: Anabaptists and the Sword. Lawrence 1973. -- Claus-Peter
CLASEN: Anabaptism. A Social History 1525-1618. Switzerland, Austria, Moravia, South and
Central Germany. Ithaca--London 1972. -- DEPPERMANN: Soziale Unruhen -- DÜLMEN:
Reformation als Revolution. Particularly important is ROTONDó's essay review of Williams's
book: I movimenti ereticali nell' Europa del Cinquecento. In: A. R. Studi e ricerce 3--38.
33. The two following works are particularly important in that respect: Martin HAAS:
Täufertum und Revolution. In: Festgabe Leonhard von Muralt zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 17 Mai
1970. Zürich 1970. 286--295. -- Richard van DÜLMEN: Das Täufertum als sozialreligiöse
Bewegung. In: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 6. 1979. 185--198.
34. WILLIAMS: Anabaptism and Spiritualism in the Kingdom 215--263.
35. For this, see the contrary approaches of TAZBIR: Miejsce Rakowa w ruchu 46. and
MARCHETTI. The latter in his review of Raków, ognisko arianizmu, in: RSI 81. 1969. 378--386.
36. For the relationship of Polish towns and the Reformation, see recently: Maria
BOGUCKA: Miasta w Polsce a reformacja. Analogie i róznice w stosunku do innych krajów. In:
ORP XXIV. 1979. 5--20. (In English: Towns in Poland and the Reformation. Analogies and
Differences with other Countries. In: APH 40. 1979. 55--74.)
37. This has been brought into particular prominence by the works of László Makkai: A
kálvini reformáció társadalmi mondanivalója a XVI. századi Magyarországon [The social
message of the Calvinist Reformation in 16th century Hungary]. In: Református egyház 1972.
193--196. -- Méliusz Juhász Péter, Magyarország Kálvinja [J. P. Melius, the Calvin of Hungary],
in: TheolSz XVI. 1973. 65--72. -- Etat des Ordres et théocratie calviniste au XVIe siecle dans
l'Europe Centro-orientale. In: Studia Historica 99. 1975. -- Un catéchisme hongrois 90--95.
135

Back
VI.
TOLERANCE OR CHURCH ORGANIZATION?
AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE DILEMMA
After the above it is perhaps not surprising that the Antitrinitarians in Transylvania responded to
the works and spiritual movements that attempted to lay the theoretical foundation of religious tolerance
after Servet's death. On the following pages we shall endeavour to present this reception and then shall
try to answer the question, to what extent it contributed to the fact that Eastern Central Europe and the
Principality of Transylvania played an outstanding role in terms of religious tolerance1 in the second half
of the sixteenth century.2
József Pokoly3 has noted that the tone Ferenc Dávid used in Refutatio scripti Petri Melii, one of
his first Antitrinitarian works, is different from that in his earlier works. While earlier he did not hesitate
to ask the prince to punish his opponents, the dedication of this work to John Sigismund is worded in a
different way. In this Dávid explains that God's word cannot be spread with fire and steel. It is no use
referring to the books of the Old Testament, since the New Testament is based on a different principle:
here the tares must be left alone until the day of harvest. He goes on to say that the people of Christ's
kingdom are volunteers, conscience cannot be coerced by external force since it is controlled by God
alone. He clearly defines the job of doctors and ministers: +However, the good mother does not reject her
mad son but looks after him and tries to cure him in every possible way and, by their office and following
the prescriptions of God's word, the teachers and ministers of the church, who have been ordered like
mothers over their audience, ought to be doing the same."4 Therefore, he cannot stop wondering at the
savagery of their opponents, who, not content with proving the errors of the Antitrinitarians, demand
sword and fire from the prince although even if they were in error (which is of course not true) they
should look after them and help them like a mother. The Antitrinitarians, on the contrary, are asking the
prince that their opponents be respected and honoured, and +that full freedom be given to them so that
they write, teach, curse and do whatever they want to do in this matter."5
Rotondo6 has also noted that this dedication at one place speaks of Pope Pelagius I in the same
manner as the part of Sebastian Castellio's De hereticis, an sint persequendi that is derived from
Sebastian Frank's Geschicktbibel. On the other hand, it is most interesting that Refutatio scripti Georgii
Maioris [Refutation of the work of George Maior], the joint work of Ferenc Dávid and Blandrata
published in 1569, also follows Castellio's method when constantly referring to the young Luther against
the Lutheran theologians of later years. What is more, at one place even the list of persons corresponds
with those included by Castellio in his famous anthology: +Why is Maior not following the views of his
ancestors, Melanchthon, Johannes Brentius, Johannes Oldenbach, Sebastian Franck and other similarly
pious men of good memory instead on the improvement of heretics?"7
At the same time the connection with Sebastian Castellio becomes even more obvious in another
text written in 1569. What we have in mind here is the dedication of De regno Christi, already considered
from several aspects, to John Sigismund. Its introduction meditates over why there is no piety and love in
the kingdom of Christ being reborn. The cause is found in the fact that even reformed churches insist on
false teachings concerning God and His son. The members of the reformed churches also prefer the
sophistries introduced by the Greek philosophers and the proud eloquence of rhetors. All this they
connect most closely with ambition and the savage desire of bloodshed. The same goes for those who
worship pictures, delight in Jewish attire, or teach falsities about the sacraments. Since none of these
listens to the pure word of God, their labours pursued with great pride and conceit cannot be fruitful. This
136

is the error the authors have tried to avoid with their activity so far and that is why they are dedicating this
work to the ruling prince.
This, however, is followed by an interesting turn in the text: +Furthermore, as regards the fact that
love, which is the only cement of peace, has gone tepid and also the horde of the authors of nonsense, and
the placid murderers of our days: our opinion of these is eloquently expressed by Sebastianus
Castell@iio, a man of great learning and integrity, in the prefatory epistle of his Bible."8
With this he gives the word to Castellio, and the rest of the text of the dedication is nothing but the
literal transcription of the dedication to King Edward VI by the Basle professor in his 1551 translation of
the Bible. This fact can hardly be overestimated and it must be stressed that a representative of religious
tolerance known all over Europe is given repeatedly the word by them through a re-publication of a text
that was included in De hereticis, an sint persequendi as well.9 The borrowed version omits only the
introductory passage where Castellio explains why he is dedicating his Bible translation to Edward VI
and sums up his principles of translation. From the end, on the other hand, only the date is missing, thus
their work is recommended to John Sigismund with the same words that Castellio had used
recommending his to the King of England: +Accept this work, O King, gracefully and humanely, and
read the Holy Scriptures with a pious and religious soul, and prepare for ruling over your kingdom as the
mortal, who has to give account before the immortal God. We wish you the clemency of Moses, the piety
of David and the wisdom of Solomon."10
The text thus borrowed from Castellio is too well known to need detailed description. Therefore,
we confine ourselves to reminding the reader that the text republished by the Transylvanians contains the
principles that support Castellio's later increasingly profound theory on tolerance.11 Thus we can find the
basic elements of the idea of fundamenta fidei since already here it is emphasized that believing in God
and Christ is sufficient for salvation. (As it is well-known, this issue would be discussed in depth in De
arte dubitandi.) But the tendency to empty the concept of heresy is also strongly present, which would
lead to the statement that lacking a fixed point of comparison men with different philosophies will regard
one another as heretics. The text at the same time contains the condemnation of bloodthirsty tyranny, a
painful complaint for the lack of charity, as well as the thought that the truth of a religious doctrine
depends on how well it serves the moral edification of the believers. As Lech Szczucki12 has put it very
aptly, with Castellio the noble error is nearer to truth than immoral +propriety", moral integrity being
more important than dogmatic correctness.
Thus the borrowing of Castellio's famous text is of extreme importance. It should also be clear at
the same time that the new context of the dedication to Edward VI somewhat reinterprets the original.
The passages written by the Transylvanians themselves indicate that they did not completely identify with
the humanist moral theology of Castellio. We have seen that the notion of ignorantia as used by the
professor from Basle is thoroughly permeated with humanistic and moral elements so much so that for
him ignorance is the cause of the lack of God's true love (verus Dei amor). The Transylvanians reverse
this relationship and for them the lack of pietas and charitas is caused by incorrect knowledge of God
(falsa de uno Deo et filio doctrina). They do not hide their dogmatic bias, and thus the formulations of the
original text that allow for a much smaller dogmatic minimum become @instrumental. It is also at least
equally characteristic that unaware of this contradiction, or not regarding the differences as such, they
juxtapose the two texts and simultaneously urge John Sigismund to obey the commandment of charity
and to labour in the propagation of truth.
Nor can it be neglected that the eschatological, prophetic background of this conception would
fade in the later works of Castellio. In a different context it has been mentioned above that it is still a very
important argument in the dedication to the King of England that the dogmatic uncertainty necessitating
tolerance is merely temporary since the time will come when the divinely instructed vates provides the
believers with certain, undoubtable facts. However, Castellio later came to view this situation demanding
137

mutual tolerance not as a transitional but as a long term phenomenon. The publishers of De regno Christi,
on the other hand, still strongly emphasize the prophetic background. They are not only convinced that
the truth is with them but also that this will soon spread and become public property. So the only way of
resolving this unfortunate situation is that everyone accepts the dogmatics they offer.
Thus the thought of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians cannot entirely be identified with that of
Castellio and this justifies our still looking for other sources. We cannot say certainly whether they knew
the first works written in the outcry after Servet's death, Camillo Renato's poem De iniusto Michaelis
Serveti incendio [On the unjust burning of Michael Servet],13 or the work entitled Apologia pro M.
Serveto, attributed first to Lelio Sozzini, then to Celio Secundo Curione and, most recently, to Matteo
Gribaldi.14 It is quite certain, however, that Dávid read the works of the dialogues of Bernardino Ochino,
the Franciscan turned heretic. The 28th dialogue of the work, translated into Latin by Castellio and
published in Basle in 1563, which the author dedicated to King Sigismund August of Poland, discusses
how heretics should be treated and whether it is allowed to kill them.15 In the dialogue Pope Pius IV and
Cardinal Morone express their opinions. According to the latter, if someone errs in something that is not
necessary for salvation, he cannot be condemned since the Catholic Church itself tolerates the differing
views of the learned doctors. Neither can he be sentenced to death who, on account of his ignorance, errs
in the articles of faith necessary for salvation because heresy, which is a spiritual thing, can be fought
with the word of God only. He groups under a third heading those who consciously preach false doctrines
in things that are necessary for salvation. These must not be killed either for it would result in unbridled
tyranny. Like Castellio, he also holds that the Mosaic law should not be followed and evokes the
scriptural passages, the parable about the wheat and the tares, the advice of Gamaliel, also cited by the
humanist from Basle. Since this dialogue did not contain significantly novel considerations, Ochino is
worth mentioning only as one who firmly stressed that +papacy" existed not only in the Catholic churches
but could develop in Protestant denominations as well.
At the same time, the work of Iacobo Aconcio,16 another Italian emigrant, who was in touch with
the Basle humanists and later settled in England, Satanae Stratagemata, published in 1564, and later in a
longer version in Basle in 1565, also exerted significant influence in Transylvania. In 1570, Johann
Sommer, professor at the college of Kolozsvár, wrote a paraphrase of the work.17 This unpublished
manuscript has never been treated by the literature on the subject. Below, we shall also mention only its
most important characteristics, but first we shall endeavour to show that Aconcio's work had been popular
among Antitrinitarians earlier as well. The starting point for this is the preface of Sommer's paraphrase,
which, among others, contains the following: +So when the brethren, having found that work of his which
he calls Stratagema@tata Satanae, thoroughly studied it, saw that God had given him what he gave only
to few, namely, that he could speak pleasantly and usefully for life at the same time, and gave him the
first place by their votes as well."18
Thus, according to Sommer, the Antitrinitarians in Transylvania knew this work he thought was
so useful very well. The literature on the subject also lists this book with the works of Castellio on the
theory of tolerance, so instead of discussing it in detail we merely mention the elements that met with
response in Transylvania.
It is well-known that Aconcio paints a picture of religious hatred very similar to that of Castellio
and he also believes that the recently founded Protestant denominations have abandoned their original
aims. The two authors are different, however, when it comes to the causes. Aconcio holds that the Satan
can achieve results because human nature was distorted after the Fall. Thus he does not share Castellio's
optimistic anthropology, and seems to formulate views close to those of the reformers without discussing
in detail the issue of free will. This approach is close to what has been said above about the position of the
Transylvanian Antitrinitarians.
Still, it would seem to be more important that Satanae Stratagemata, called in the literature on the
138

subject realistic and practical with good reason, discusses a number of questions in detail that are hardly
mentioned by Castellio at all. He did not elaborate minutely what the relationship between the magistrate
and the church should be like, and certain remarks of his invite the inference that he held the two were
clearly separable. He gives the secular powers no chance to interfere in religious matters, at most he
allows a parallelism between the activities of the state and the church for the improvement of
morals.19 On the other hand, his philosophy being on the theoretical level and his approach being strongly
inspired by spiritualistic tendencies, he does not discuss ecclesiological issues a all. The problematics of
the church as organization falls outside of his interest, hence he is not concerned with how his theories
could be put into practice within the framework of the organized churches. Obviously, the Antitrinitarians
in Transylvania could not sidestep the question of the secular powers and the church, indeed, for them this
was the real issue, so they eagerly turned to the works of Aconcio, who treated this subject in abundant
detail.
Discussing the relationship between the magistrates and the church, Aconcio points out that the
former cannot condemn heretics. In that respect he does not distinguish between good and bad
magistrates. He explains it the most clearly when interpreting Mt 13:24-30, the parable of the wheat and
the tares, crucial in the debates on tolerance. The householder is obviously protecting his wheat when he
forbids the servants to gather the tares, and then Aconcio goes on: +He denied that pious and wise
authorities had right to proceed against real heretics, lest after their example godless and foolish
magistrates then abuse the pious servants of God as well. Since this law was made for the sake of God's
pious servants lest they also be falsely sentenced to death as assumed heretics, we must be careful to
accept an explanation which, although the magistrate believes he is following the law, does not help him
towards the end to which the law has been made by the legislator."20 That is to say, even wise magistrates
are forbidden to punish the real heretics lest, abusing this example, the godless harm God's servants. Does
this then mean that offices have no purpose in the kingdom of God? Not at all. For Aconcio does not
think much of the princes who completely expose themselves to the judgement of the clergy in
ecclesiastical matters. These princes do not read the Scripture, do not take part in religious disputes, so
they accept without reflection what the clericals, led by their selfish interests, tell them. It is thus obvious
that there is a definite need for the assistance of wise magistrates in order to curb the unrestricted power
of the clergy. But he spells out their duties even more concretely than that: they punish atheists and apostates,
those who abandon the Christian religion or encourage others to do so. They also have the right to
abolish idolatry, to protect the pious from the violence of the godless and to keep the public peace. It is
also their job to set up judges for religious disputes who know no other authority save the word of God.
They also see that private debates are not made under the pretext of religion. That is, we could say that it
is the responsibility of the state to guarantee the peaceful course of the debates and to intervene at any
time when either party stoops to slander the other.
This subject as a whole is not treated in any one Antitrinitarian publication, but the remarks
dropped in various works make the outline of their thought perceptible. This is how the dedication of
Refutatio scripti Petri Melii defines the rights of a prince: +On the basis of God's word and contrary to the
dreams of the Antichrist we acknowledge that the supreme secular authority has the power to proceed
against the clergy, to summon synods, and to elect judges to decide in debated questions of religious
matters."21 Even though it is not specified in what cases the prince can punish a minister of the church,
what they had in mind was very probably the use of force and the criminalis excessus that would be
codified later.
Further details come to light from the Hungarian works in which Ferenc Dávid paints such an idealized
portrait of the ruling Prince of Transylvania that it seems perfectly to fit the ideal of Aconcio. This
prince is impartial, has no ear for flattery, which the Antitrinitarians, as a matter of course(!) would never
try, but he is also capable of giving an impartial opinion in matters of religion. In the dedication of the
sermons to John Sigismund, for instance, Ferenc Dávid declares that he has never tried to convince the
prince that they are right, which would have been futile anyway since the hearts of kings are in the hand
139

of God. This prince is naturally not indifferent to the cause of religion, indeed, he takes part in synods, ensuring
the free course of debate. It is his responsibility to call to order preachers demanding fire and steel.
As a spectacular manifestation of this idealized picture, the following words of the ruling Prince to the
Calvinists were recorded in the protocols of the religious dispute at Várad: +You have not suffered from
us or from ours. And we have sent word to Melius that he stop playing pope, expelling ministers on
account of the true religion, burning books in our realm because we want what the Diet has also decided
that there be freedom in our realm. We also know that faith is the gift of God and that conscience cannot
be forced. Therefore, if he does not keep to it, he can go to the other side of the river Tisza."23 Thus, since
there is freedom in his realm, the ruling Prince expels those who use force in religious matters to the territories
under Hapsburg rule. This idealized picture can, at the same time, accommodate the requirement
that the prince makes sure the documents published about the religious disputes are objective and
impartial. Ferenc Dávid himself writes somewhere that the ruling Prince and some of his councillors had
read the protocols of the religious dispute at Várad before it could be printed and published.24
This ruler, striving for justice, behaves like Gamaliel, knowing that justice must not be defended
with the arms of an empire on the outside since the true doctrine will triumph without it. Being only
human, even this ideal ruler may be angered by the savagery of the enemies of the Gospel, but then the
true members of the kingdom of Christ will intervene and pacify him. At least Ferenc Dávid claims that
they often have humbly begged the ruling Prince not to mete out punishment to their opponents who have
broken the law.25
It is not difficult to show the propagandistic elements in these passages of Ferenc Dávid. For the
Antitrinitarians obviously did all they could to win the ruling Prince of Transylvania and other
Transylvanian aristocrats for their religion. It has, however, serious significance that they chose meekness
and tolerance as instruments of this propaganda. In their view, what proved that they were right in the
religious disputes was precisely the fact that they needed neither the use of force nor mudslinging for
victory. Calvinist church historiography is inclined to see pure demagogy in the preaching of tolerance by
the Antitrinitarians, who were enjoying the support of the prince. This approach, however, oversimplifies
the situation because it ignores the fact that the Antitrinitarians had professed the same principles even
before the prince committed himself for them. We can see this same reasoning in Refutatio scripti Petri
Melii, published in 1567. So we might even reverse the argument and say that the growing sympathy for
Ferenc Dávid and his associates was based not only Antitrinitarianism, but also on the recognition that the
religious tolerance they preached perfectly matched the interests of the newly created state.
We also come across the echoes of Aconcio's ideas if we examine ecclesiological issues in
connection with tolerance. It is well-known that he was for autonomous and free churches, even to some
extent in dogmatics, which maintained loose connections with one another. Hence he rejected not only the
Pope of the Catholic Church but was averse to all kinds of hierarchy. Thus he strongly criticized
Protestant religious disputes and synods as well. Admitting that these can be useful if the participants rely
on God's word instead of seeking their own benefit, he discusses at length what harm they can do.
Religious disputes contribute towards finding the truth in exceptional cases only since the debating parties
are unable to get rid of their passions. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the decisions these synods
return are in accordance with the word of God. So, it cannot be required that everyone obey the decisions
of synods.
Certain elements of these thoughts were present among the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians. The
members of the kingdom of Christ belong to the free churches, we read in Notae membrorum regni
Christi, and in the late 1560s this was defined mostly as independence from the great Protestant centres.
There were permanent debates on whether they were obliged to accept the decisions of foreign
academies, as it was demanded by Calvinists. The Antitrinitarians naturally protested since they could expect
nothing good from Geneva or Wittemberg, and generally it was agreed that both parties would send
140

their theses wherever they saw best. It is at the same time conspicuous that the role of the congregations
was increasing in importance. This was indicated by the fact that by the late 1560s religious disputes were
more and more frequently conducted in the vernacular. At the Várad debate in 1569, which was conducted
in Hungarian, the difference between the approaches of the Calvinists and Antitrinitarians was
particularly obvious. The former urged the prince to follow the example of Emperor Constantine and
appoint judges (arbiter) to decide who was right. They also demanded that the prince silence and punish
the defeated party. The prince, on the contrary, accepted the Antitrinitarian position that the congregation
should be allowed to pass the verdict. There are, at the same time, clear signs indicating that the
Antitrinitarians treated even this ideal @instrumentally, making it serve the purposes of missionary work.
Their literary works (comedies, dialogues) written in Hungarian in the late 1560s and early 1570s very
vividly represent the rights of congregations, but there are documents to prove that in practice they did
not always follow these principles. When, for instance, coming to a region where Antitrinitarianism was
unknown, their missionaries applied totally different tactics. They challenged their opponents, who were
Calvinists in most of the cases, to an exclusive Latin debate with only the leaders of the magistrate
invited, and at this stage they did not insist at all that the congregation should arbitrate.26
A similar contradiction between theory and practice can be perceived concerning the issue of the
religious disputes as well. The Antitrinitarians often declared that they abhorred those noisy gatherings,
where debaters, carried away by passions, uttered things that did not serve the edification of the church,
etc. Yet they could not afford dismissing these debates since their strong conviction of their own
righteousness called them to the arena, and their aversion to religious debates would become a mere
rhetoric formula.
However, Aconcio's ideas concerning the inner lives of the churches posed an even greater
problem for them. He very firmly spelled out that the institution of communis prophetia, which existed in
the early churches until the days of the Emperor Constantine, should be reestablished. Communis
prophetia meant that anyone, not the clergy only, could speak their mind in front of the congregation. The
congregation then decided about it, and if the decision was negative, they had to convince the prophet of
his error. If they fail in doing that, eventually he would have to be excommunicated. At the same time it is
a very important element of this conception that it denies the necessity of any ordinatio, claiming that this
was not required in the Christian congregations either until the reign of the Emperor Constantine.
In this context we should remember several ideas that De regno Christi borrowed from Servet already
pointed in this direction, for instance, that everyone who teaches God's word to others can be
regarded as an apostle. We have also seen, on the other hand, that the explications of the Spanish heretic
were rather theoretical on account of his spiritualism. We have also seen, however, that the distinction
among the possessors of singularis revelatio, those elected by the church, and those with false calling was
a significant limitation. Of course, Aconcio also uses restrictions, but he appeals exclusively to the inner
discipline of the believers, warning them to come forward with their opinions after due deliberation only:
+The people often have to be admonished that the apostle did not authorize everyone to speak before the
congregation, that anything that came to one's tongue was not to be said as in the marketplace, but when
he allows the one that has been given the revelation to speak, he also requires that all audacity and
impertinence be kept away."27
Neither does Notae membrorum regni Christi encourage the practice of communis prophetia.
According to the eighth proposition, everyone is to keep to their own trade, and the ninth says that the
members of the kingdom of Christ have to give account of their faith to anyone asking for it. Points of
faith have to be discussed calmly, with love and without prejudice, and the verdict to be left to the church.
Although these propositions are, of course, in harmony with the work of Aconcio as a whole, still they
can hardly be regarded as the affirmation of communis prophetia. These notes say nothing about the
practice prominent especially in the experiment at Raków that everyone was free to prophesy, indeed,
professional pastors even resigned from their posts. They restrict the role of the lay members to freely
141

electing their own pastors.
It would seem that all this reflected in the fate of the paraphrase, which Johannes Sommer made
from the work of Aconcio in 1570. The dedication of the manuscript does not reveal who has
commissioned the work. The fact that the dedication is addressed to the pious and faithful pastors of
Transylvania (Omnibus piis et fidelibus verbi divini ministris per Transylvaniam) would seem to indicate
that the professor of the Kolozsvár College recorded his own, personal views in the paraphrase, trying to
convince the Protestant pastors of the correctness of these views. Thus he is not addressing the
Antitrinitarians only although, as it has been shown by Antal Pirnát,28 he frequently adds formulations to
Aconcio's text that clearly indicate he was on their side. These, however, are not polemic phrases but
formulas that the Antitrinitarians thought were acceptable for the other Protestant denominations as well.
This tendency is visible mainly in placing the Apostolic Creed into the centre, which was discussed above
in the chapter on Christology. Nor is this what Sommer himself mentions as the reason for the paraphrase,
but that the structure of Aconcio's book was not sufficiently logical and its style not clear enough. The
paraphrase intends to change this by condensing the original eight books into five, by separating smaller
chapters within the books and also by moving the work nearer the Erasmian ideal of Latinity. It must, at
the same time, give one pause that the work apparently was never printed even though the dedication
makes it clear that this was what Sommer had in mind. Pirnát29 earlier thought it possible that the work
was printed and published in 1570 or 1571, but now he believes it was not. Why not, one may ask. For
one, one may think that the work turned out to be much too learned. For Sommer not only wrote his
paraphrase in a more polished Latin, more characteristic of the humanists, but included a significantly
greater number of references to classical authors, often including Greek quotations in the text. Still, this
would not be sufficient grounds for the failure to be printed. It is more significant that the paraphrase
displays much more sympathy than the original for spiritualistic tendencies. Sommer often expresses
disapproval that those who attempt to improve the church are called shwermerus without deliberation.
These passages are not part of the work of Aconcio either in its 1564 or in its 1565 editions. Let the
following quotation illustrate their drive: +It also happens that while always debating over one, they
forget about other, more important things, and that is the only reason why they distinguish between pious
and godless, heretic and Christian, although otherwise they lead sober and correct lives. Examples from
the recent past also prove this, when the churches were terribly tortured for some not really important
theses of the Christian religion, and those who did great work in restituting the doctrine of piety were
branded heretic Schwermerians. And in the meantime morals have deteriorated so much that the towns
that were among the first to boast of the name of the Gospel today have hardly anything but the name of
the Gospel."30 The German terminology would suggest that Sommer might have here in mind the
spiritualists in Germany, but it should also be remembered that, as we have seen above, it was in 1570
that Elias Gczmidele, who came forward with spiritualistic teachings, was removed from the congregation
of the Saxons in Kolozsvár. Thus, as a minimum, it can be said that Sommer did not like this procedure,
and this part of his work might have been meant as a message for Ferenc Dávid and Gáspár Heltai.
This tone manifests itself even more forcefully in the passages on communis prophetia. Instead of
simply borrowing Aconcio's ideas, Sommer here develops them further in a significant degree. This
materializes partly in the hymnic glorification of early Christian practice and partly in the explanation that
the triumph of true piety is inconceivable without its restoration. As Sommer says, communis prophetia is
the best means to curb the arrogance of learned theologians. This is the only way to have a noble
competition in reading the Holy Scriptures, and to achieve a daily reconciliation of opinions. He firmly
denies that uneducated persons (idiota) cannot have right views in matters of religion. On the contrary,
we can be assured they speak from divine revelation unlike theologians, who borrow their doctrines from
each other.31
All this will have shown that Sommer's paraphrase formulates ideas that transcend what was contained
in Notae membrorum as the views of the Antitrinitarian leaders. Working on the development of a
new ecclesiastical structure, they probably found the introduction of communis prophetia too dangerous
142

and would not permit Sommer's work to be published. Its publication was all the more impossible by the
fact that by that time the only press in Kolozsvár that could have printed it was owned by Gáspár Heltai,
who might have felt that the work, if indirectly, attacked him.
So what Heltai did was to publish another work relevant to our subject. It was the Hungarian
translation, or rather paraphrase, entitled Háló [Net],32 of Sanctae Inquisitionis Hispanicae artes, printed
in Heidelberg in 1567. The literature on the circumstances of the writing of the Latin work, and on who is
behind the name Reginaldus Gonsalvius Montanus on its front cover is quite abundant.33 Of the more
recent findings, those spelled out by Carlos Gilly seem to be the most convincing.34 The Transylvanian
reception of the work will be very logical if we accept that its author was Casiodoro de Reyna, who,
having fled from Spain, could not find his place in the northern Protestant communities either. In an
especially interesting chapter of the ordeal of the book, Reyna wanted to have it printed in Basle by
Johannes Oporinus, and the humanist printer of Basle was even considering a second edition of the work;
the connections of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians with Basle would explain how the book found its
way to Transylvania. Most importantly, however, Gilly shows that the preface of the work is a manifesto
in defense of religious tolerance based on the arguments of Castellio's De hereticis, an sint persequendi
and Conseil a la France désolée. Thus, more than just a pamphlet exposing the dreadful acts of the
Inquisition in Spain, the book is an integral element in the series of works coming to the defense of
religious tolerance in the spirit of Castellio.
The paraphrase by Gáspár Heltai is entitled to a very special place among the translations of the
work into various languages.35 The preface says that the Heidelberg edition was sent by someone to ruling
Prince John Sigismund himself, and he commissioned its translation paying the costs of the publication as
well. According to Heltai, the purpose of the prince with this was to show the entire Hungarian nation the
vileness of the papal Antichrist. Consequently, the resulting work is a topically updated paraphrase,
recording several unknown details of the history of the Reformation in Hungary and in Transylvania.
Since the essay of László Szörényi36 has excellently grasped the basic idea of the paraphrase, we shall
confine ourselves here to a few complementary remarks. Szörényi argues very convincingly that Heltai
created a linguistically also strong Antitrinitarian piece of writing from the original, the purpose of which
was to expose the doings of the devil. The work proves with a preacher's zeal that the devil is a liar and a
murderer. That he is a murderer is shown by the activity of the Inquisition, and the fact that he invented
the Trinity makes it clear that he is a liar. The thesis resulted in fundamental modifications not to be
detailed here. It is at the same time very interesting that this idea is the starting point of Aconcio's
Satanae stratagemata, except the words 'murderer' (homicida) and 'liar' (mendax) are used there in a
different sense. It cannot be ruled out that the basic conception of the work comes from an interpretation
of Aconcio's work, which was very popular among Antitrinitarians, and the translation of which by
Sommer could not be published in print. It is also remarkable in terms of relationships that Artes itself
may not be independent of Aconcio's influence. This would of course require a more detailed explication,
but the use of the term stratagemata and a number of similar ideas support this assumption. What we
know of the life of Reyna, or of the other possible author, Antonio del Corro, would definitely support
this as well.
The most important feature of the Hungarian version is that it completely ignores the basic idea of
the original, namely that no matter what, force must not be used against those who hold differing
opinions. Although borrowing certain thoughts concerning the history of the Inquisition from the Preface,
Heltai entirely omits its leading idea arguing for tolerance. So it should not come as a surprise that he
consistently drops all similar ideas in the later course of the book. The following could be added to this
observation of Szörényi's. In Heltai's version the victims of the Inquisition are unequivocally Lutherans.
While in the original they were the representatives of a truer piety, of a Christianity in accordance with
the ideas of the Gospels, Heltai makes them the champions of another denomination. In this context it
should also be noted that he drops every line of reasoning that compares the activity of the Inquisition
with the practice of the early church, and he totally omits the spiritualistic tendency of the Latin as well.
143

No passage that attributes any little role to revelation, direct divine revelation given to the unlearned,
found its way into the Hungarian version. Thus the tendency we have earlier seen with Heltai is still going
strong, and consequently the work is closest to a French translation which Jean Crespin published in
Geneva in 1568, and which, as Gilly says, also omitted the preface of the Latin original.37 (Although I
have not compared the two translations, I would say this was a case of parallel publications since Heltai
clearly says he was working from the Latin original.) So Heltai is acting here quite in the spirit of the
Calvinists, the apes of the Pope, which is even more emphasized if we consider what he replaced the
omitted ideas with. For he writes that it is the responsibility of princes to prevent the practices of the
devil, which for him means that idolatry ought to be abolished, the false teachers cast out and those using
blasphemy punished.
Thus, although Heltai, who had joined the Antitrinitarians only recently in 1569, carried on a
passionate debate with the Calvinists, he essentially proposed the same as Gáspár Károlyi or Melius, i.e.
the punishment and removal of heretics. Later we shall see how much John Sigismund followed this
advice. Now let us just say that if Sommer' paraphrase of Aconcio, with its audacious ecclesiological
conclusions, went beyond what the Antitrinitarian leaders thought in one direction, Heltai's work must be
regarded as an extreme in the other direction. One might say that the passionate intolerance of Heltai's
work creates a background against which the tolerant positions of Ferenc Dávid or Blandrata stand out in
even sharper relief.
We have to put special emphasis on the fact that the leaders of the Transylvanian Antitrinitarians,
if partly as part of their propaganda, never demanded the punishment of their opponents. They did not
insist on it even when they were being supported by the authority of the ruling prince. In that sense they
were really of exceptional significance, differing from the formula usually valid for the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries that tolerance and religious freedom were preached by suppressed minorities only,
who would deny their earlier principles after coming to power. We have here the very special situation
that the Antitrinitarians, who enjoyed the support of the prince, flirting even with the Anabaptist model of
church history, saw the cause of the degeneration of the church and the corruption of Christianity in the
fact that the clergy resorted to violent means while defending and propagating the faith, while the
Calvinists, against whom the prince expressed his disapproval a number of times, were urging him to
punish the heretics, precisely after the example of Constantine.
Their adherence to these principles absorbed along with Antitrinitarianism were, of course, due to
a number of factors. In this respect we must not forget again that Dávid and his associates spoke as the
representatives of international Antitrinitarianism in a very exceptional position. So when they continued
adhering to their earlier principles even when enjoying the support of John Sigismund, the propaganda
they made also served the Antitrinitarians living outside of Transylvania. Not to mention the fact that on a
European scale they were in a minority together with their brethren in Poland and elsewhere. In that
context their sense of being threatened cannot be dismissed as the propagandistic affection of those
enjoying the backing of the powers that be. It is well-known how keenly the important Protestant centres
in Western Europe followed with attention the Eastern Central European developments of
Antitrinitarianism and also that they, from Béze through Maior, made no secret of what the most efficient
ways would be to annihilate the hated heresy. In addition, these were much more than just pia desideria
as they were very persistently and doggedly trying to convince the nobility and the rulers of the region of
the necessity to liquidate Antitrinitarianism. The most eloquent document of that is the foreword of Béze's
work, which refuted the heresies of Gentile. Having drawn the genealogy of the satanic heresy in
question, it urges not only the faithful in Poland and in Transylvania to act, but turns with lofty words to
the rulers as well. First encouraging the King of Poland to act with resolution, he continues: +It is also
your duty, O most serene king of Transylvania, to consider what man it is that you are practically nursing
on your bosom lest someone who is not one whit better than Muhammad himself, taking advantage of the
authority of your royal name, should launch an attack from the country, which the Lord miraculously has
kept for you for so many years, and which recently He started to consecrate for himself, against the whole
144

Christian world, which would certainly do more harm to souls than could do either the Muscovites or the
Tartars or the Turks with any glorious victory."38 No wonder that the indignant Blandrata, who was also
fiercely attacked in his person, wrote the following about the above passage: +And at the end he sounds a
terrible battle alarm against us, urging the most serene kings of Poland and Transylvania to massacre
us."39 In August 1568, Josias Simler also formulated the hopes attached to the King of Hungary: +But in
the meantime the good hope is still alive in us that the wise leaders of that country and especially His
Majesty King John II of Hungary, upon whom all pious people look with great expectations, will apply
the lawful measures against this nascent trouble in time."40 He praised John Sigismund for moderating at
disputes as Constantine had, and expressed his hope that peace would be restored in the church with the
liquidation of heresies.
It is also perfectly clear that the swiftly changing international situation also made the
Antitrinitarians interested in adhering to the idea of religious tolerance and formulating principles that
would safeguard the survival of their religion in the long run as well. Perhaps it is as well at this point to
recall an episode of the attempts to win John Sigismund, in which the activities of the theologians just
quoted were at least parallel with the enterprise on the level of high politics.
As it is well known, the Sultan, at the insistence of the Transylvanians, dispatched Bey Mahmud
to the French court in June 1569 to secure the hand of Margaret Valois for John Sigismund. It also
appears from Béze's correspondence that in the following months Calvinist theologians were energetically
urging the ruling Prince of Transylvania to take steps against Antitrinitarianism. In a letter to Béze from
Heidelberg on September 22, 1569, Jan Lasicki suggests that the Genevan theologian dedicate the coming
out edition of the dialogues of Athanasius to John Sigismund because the church father, who struggled
with heretics, could be a good example for the prince. The he goes on: +I sent the other day this King
John a bundle of the letters from your princes, which Doctor Tremellius had commended very firmly to
me, and his attention had been drawn to them by the brother of the Admiral, who is in England; thus their
letters would in due course be probably followed by your Dialogues."41
Unfortunately, we do not know what letters he sent to John Sigismund. The editors of Béze's
correspondence only assume that they were memoirs and admonitions written by leading Huguenots to
the King of France, but the do not rule out that Lasicki sent the letters that French Huguenots had written
to German Protestant princes soliciting for their help. It is even possible that they even wrote to John
Sigismund himself. Several circumstances seem to support this assumption. Early in 1569 Guilleaume
Stuart, Count of Vezines set out with a commission to try to win the German princes to support the
Huguenots. First he went to England, where he had talks with the pro-Protestant Cardinal Odet de
Chatillon, then crossed back to the continent and delivered the letters of Queen Jeanne d'Albret of
Navarre, the Duke of Condé, Count Gaspard de Chatillon Coligny, Henri de Navarre (the future Henry IV
of France), Andelot, Henri de Condé and Odet de Chatillon to the respective addressees. In June he is
already in Heidelberg, promoting with the help of Elector Frederick of Pfalz the alliance with England
and the French Protestants.42 Lasicki also writes his letter from there, providing a continuous flow of
information between Eastern Central European and Western Protestants. The Tremellius mentioned in the
letter was, we know, Professor of Hebrew at Heidelberg University, who visited England on a diplomatic
mission in 1569. All this makes it very probable that Lasicki was delivering letters from the above
mentioned persons to John Sigismund, which he was given through the mediation of Tremellius by
Coligny's brother, Cardinal Odet de Chatillon, who had fled to England and was busily active in the court
of Queen Elizabeth I. It is quite possible that a remark of the very well informed Ferenc Forgách refers to
this manoeuvre. Among others he writes the following about the organizing activities of the Huguenots:
+...they also renewed old friendships and made new alliances, sending letters and envoys to the most
distant provinces so as to get money from those of the same faith: that is how they sought out the Poles
and the Transylvanian John II as well."43
We shall forbear now from considering the actual circumstances of the above episode since it was
145

mentioned as an example only. A glimpse at the wider European horizon shows very well how much the
Antitrinitarians, who preached tolerance, had to count with the religious and political events in Europe.
That is why they persistently claimed that they belonged to the Reformation, but as their Protestant
opponents did not recognize this, the international Protestant joining of forces, demanded by so many,
was a menace for them. For their repeatedly renewed attempts to propagate Antitrinitarianism, to have it
accepted and probably to bring it to victory fell short of bringing them significant successes in the
international arena.44
On the other hand, having won the support of the prince, some influential aristocrats and relatively
large groups of the nobility and the bourgeoisie did not mean that the Antitrinitarians could be confident
that they were supported by the +powers that be". The situation was much more complicated than that
since from the Saxon towns through the nobility in Eastern Hungary significant social and political forces
were fiercely opposed to Antitrinitarianism. Against this background, the continuous threats of Melius
and his followers could not be dismissed at all as idle talk. The +Pope of Debrecen" kept demanding the
eradication of the damned heretics, and his catechism published in 1569 was completed with a dedication
to John Sigismund that contained serious threats.45 Quoting Béze and Bullinger, he declared that the
changing of religion would inevitably cause the destruction of the country and the change of power as
well. He explicitly tells the ruling Prince that he had disappointed a great number of noblemen, preachers
and teachers, as well as foreign academies, and they did not expect anything good from him. Thus the
Antitrinitarians' sense of being threatened was not unjustified at all in that liquid political situation. What
is more, there was the case of Lukács Egri who, having preached Antitrinitarianism in the vicinity of
Debrecen and in territories under Hapsburg jurisdiction, was imprisoned by the Hapsburg authorities after
his views had been condemned by the pastors of a joint Calvinist and Lutheran synod.
This already leads us over to a consideration of actual religious political practice.46 Although there
are very few sources for that, the question should be asked nevertheless whether the religious laws of
Transylvania reflected the appearance of a movement that preached tolerance.
First of all, we must make it clear that the emergence of the earlier tendencies of the Reformation
in Transylvania did not make possible the transplantation of either the German Lutheran ecclesiastic
organization based on independent territorial principalities, or of the Swiss Calvinist hierarchy based on
autonomous local churches. The ethnical diversity of the region also worked against this. At the same
time, the policies of the earlier decades had been determined by the fact that the leaders of the state,
which was in a very wobbly position, balancing between the ambitions of the Turks and the Hapsburgs,
simply could not afford to weaken their own position by intensifying religious controversies. All this, as
well as the disintegration of the Catholic hierarchy, had opened the way for the peaceful, unhindered
spread of the various trends of the Reformation among first the Saxon and then the Hungarian population.
The Transylvanian Diets essentially codified the actual situation. This happened first in 1550 when, for
the first time in Europe, freedom of worship was guaranteed for both Catholics and Lutherans. In 1564,
the same right was conferred upon the followers of the Helvetian movement, spreading from the late
1550s. This had very interesting consequences in terms of ecclesiastical organization, which in many
respects determined later developments. The Catholic bishopric of Gyulafehérvár, which ceased to exist,
was replaced by two bishoprics organized along territorial-national and non-confessional lines. This
meant that the Saxon bishops had jurisdiction over those living in the vicinity, or in, the Saxon towns
irrespective of whether they were Lutherans or Calvinists. The bishop of the Hungarians had a similarly
wide authority: all the Lutherans and Calvinists outside the Saxon territories fell under his jurisdiction. In
addition to that, there was the Superintendentia, which covered the territory of the former bishopric of
Várad as well as other areas in Partium that formerly had belonged to the Catholic bishoprics of Eger or
Csanád. All that, complemented with the right of the individual towns to decide for themselves which
permitted religion they wished to follow, resulted in a unique legal situation.
The two diet decisions, passed at Torda in 1568 and at Marosvásárhely in 1571, which in the
146

period under discussion treated the cause of religion in a more general sense, practically followed the
spirit of the earlier ones. Let us quote their text:
+According to agreements reached at previous sittings of Diet between His Majesty and the
people of his realm concerning matters of religion, it is once again confirmed by this present sitting that
pastors shall be free to preach and teach the Gospel wherever the may be and according to their own
interpretation. If the parish chooses to accept this interpretation then all well and good; if not, the parish
shall not be forced to accept it against the peace of its should, and shall be free to insist upon the
maintenance of a preacher whose teachings are suited to its requirements. For this reason, following the
former constitutions, not one of the superintendents, not any other person shall have the right to offend
the pastors or abuse anybody at all on the basis of their religion nor shall anyone be threatened with
imprisonment or removal from office for their teaching, for faith is the gift of God received through the
act of listening, the vehicle of God's word."47 Therefore, +[i]t has been decided concerning the preaching
of God's word that just as Your Majesty has earlier decided with the Diet, the word of God shall be
preached freely everywhere and no one, neither preacher nor listener, shall come to harm on account of
the confession, but if a minister should fall into criminal excess, he shall be condemned and deprived of
all his functions by the superintendent, and then shall be banished from the realm."48
The most important aspect of these laws is the effort to maintain the political unity of the country
despite religious arguments. This would explain the fact that the rights of the superintendents were discontinued
precisely in spiritual matters. They could take their ministers to task only if they committed serious
moral crimes, like theft, murder or fornication. The purpose of this move was obviously to restrict
the religious quarrels to congregational level while maintaining the existing organizational framework.
These important laws are often said to have legitimized Antitrinitarianism in Transylvania and
thus it was through them that the four receptae religiones, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism and
Antitrinitarianism, became legal in the principality. Now this approach needs a little refining, for the laws
do not name any one particular religion, and it is this openness that should be considered their chief
novelty. It is another question that at the given time this meant the admission of the Antitrinitarians. It is
also true that the restriction of the authority of the superintendents was favourable for the expansion of the
dynamically advancing Antitrinitarianism,49 but it should be added that this restriction concerned all the
three superintendents.
It was different with the Catholics. These laws did not repeal the decision passed at Torda in April
1566, which read as follows:
+Finally, since the Lord God in His goodness has spread the light of His Gospels in every corner
of His Majesty's realm, and wishes to purify the Holy Church of false knowledge and aberration, it has
been decided in the same spirit, that those members of the church who insist upon acknowledgement of
the papacy and the human inventions in matter of religion and refuse to be converted from this position,
should be expelled from His Majesty's realm."50
Thus this decision, banishing Catholic priests from Transylvania, contributed in a considerable
degree to the disintegration of the Catholic church there. It might be regarded as a merit of the Acts of
1568 and 1571 that at least they did not repeat the condemnation of Catholics, but after the above antecedents
it is too conspicuous how very Protestant the language of the acts is. The reasoning +faith is the
gift of God received through the act of listening, the vehicle of God's word" is so reminiscent of the argument
of universal Protestantism that the Catholics could hardly have taken it to refer to themselves. It will
be very interesting at this place to look at the Confederation of Warsaw, an act of law passed in 1573 the
other tolerant country in Europe. Its text reads as follows: +Whereas there is no small dissidium in our
country in the matter of religion, in order to prevent it from causing such harmful conflicts among people
that we can see clearly in other countries, we, dissidentes de religione bind ourselves for our own sake
147

and that of our posterity in perpetuity, on our oath, faith, honour and conscience, to keep the peace among
ourselves on the subject of difference of religion and the changes brought about in our churches; we bind
ourselves not to shed blood; not to punish one another by confiscation of goods, loss of honour,
imprisonment or exile; not to give any assistance on this point in any way to any authority or official, but
on the contrary to unite ourselves against anyone who would shed blood for this reason."51
It is clear that this contains no theological justification, but merely refers to the conflicts in other
countries and the keeping of peace. It is also well-known that its interpretation sparked off great
debates.52 In the sixteenth century the polemics centered mainly around who were meant by dissidentes
de religione. The powerful efforts that Poland saw were just the opposite of those in Transylvania. While
in Poland attempts were made to keep various Protestant denominations and, of course, mainly the
Antitrinitarians outside the effect of the law, in Transylvania the Catholics were excluded from it. It is
also true, however, that Catholic priests were allowed to continue operating on the estates of a few
Catholic families (the Báthorys, for instance) and in Szekler districts as well.
At the same time, it is unquestionable that the Transylvanian laws were socially more open than
the Confederation of Warsaw. At least in Poland the towns were practically not allowed to refer to the
Confederation (it is another question that most of them did enjoy religious freedom on the basis of various
privileges), and peasants were placed in quite a different dimension by the law, there is no doubt about
that: all it said was that they could not rebel against their lords under the pretext of religion. The laws in
Transylvania, on the other hand, mention parishes without limitations. This fact has led some historians to
believe that the Act of 1568 placed restrictions even on the privileges of the landlords (ius
patronatus).53 What would seem much more probable is that the makers of that law had the local secular
authorities in mind. Thus, in the towns this right belonged to the municipal council, while in the market
towns (oppida) and villages it depended on the relationship of the landlord and the congregation to what
extent the latter could assert their will.
It must be added that the Rumanian population, which made up one third of the total population of
Transylvania but was not among the political nations that constituted the state, were in a quite different
dimension. They followed the Orthodox religion, which merely tolerated, as it had been in the previous
decades. In this period, at the same time, there were attempts to spread the ideas of the Reformation
among them. These attempts were not really successful even though it was the Diet at Torda in 1568 that
passed a law against those who hindered the propagating of the Gospel among the Rumanians.
The act passed at the Diet of Medves in 1570 was, on the other hand, much more mysterious: +We
shall earn fairly the answer Your Majesty has given in the case of the heresies recently risen and their
initiators, namely that keeping the honour of the Lord God and your own dignity as a prince in mind Your
Majesty will not suffer such blasphemies and heresies in your realm but will detect their initiators and
preachers and have them punished so that we escape the wrath of the Lord God even greater than
now."54 Its interpretation is still unsolved. Is has been suggested that the ruling prince wishing to marry
Margaret of Valois had this law passed against the Antitrinitarians in order to avert the suspicion of
heresy from himself. It has been associated with what Ferenc Dávid wrote to Palaeologus on November
27, 1570: +The times we are living in do not permit safe research any more. And as to publicly confessing
what we believe, I had better say nothing about it."55 Hardly could this act, however, relate to the
Antitrinitarians as a whole since, on the one hand, it clearly speaks of +heresies recently risen" and, on
the other, there are no signs to indicate that there were reprisals against the Antitrinitarians as a whole. In
the case of Ferenc Dávid's letter, mentioned above during the discussion of Christology, one may think
that he had no possibility to publicly confess the doubts that he told Palaeologus about. So the position of
József Pokoly56 would seem to be correct, who holds that the act must have concerned the priest Miklós,
who wanted to institutionalize re-baptism, or György Karácsony and his movement. Even if it responded
to individual cases, it clearly indicates that freedom of religion was not without limits even for Protestant
denominations.
148

Similar problems of interpretation are raised by another restriction as well. Chancellor Mihály
Csáki wrote a letter to Melius on February 15, 1570, harshly reprimanding Melius for his quarrels and
swearing, and also containing the following: +The Prince warned you about all that already at the public
synod at Gyulafehérvár and, believe me, he hardly tolerates it and had strictly ordered me to tell you to
refrain from blasphemous language and cursing, and that you are not to print anything without the
judgement and agreement of the church and His Majesty's consent. The prince will not suffer that you
print books full of blasphemous verses and swearings, which offend Christian readers, unjustly accuse the
ministers of Christ and give a bad reputation to the church of God."57 This letter is regarded as an order of
censure especially by Calvinist church historians and a parallel is drawn with the decree István Báthory
issued on September 17, 1571 saying that even the smallest work of either old or new authors must not be
printed in Transylvania without his permission. This interpretation is supported by literary historians as
well, who hold that the reason more and more secular works (mainly historical songs) were published in
Debrecen was that printer András Komlós did not dare to print Calvinist theological works on account of
the prince's order.58 Researches of recent years have, however, called this interpretation in doubt. Now we
know that the publication of works with secular subjects had started as early as 1569, i.e before the letter
of Mihály Csáki.59 On the other hand, a survey of what the printing shop of András Komlós in Debrecen
published in 1570 and early in 1571 (John Sigismund died in March 1571) reveals that the list contains
expressly Calvinist polemics as well. Maybe these were printed with the permission of the prince but it
cannot be claimed that the Antitrinitarian prince left the Calvinists without printing presses. Thus this restriction
cannot have been really drastic, and John Sigismund was acting in the spirit of Aconcio if he
took measures to stop the swearing only.
Of course, the Antitrinitarian leaders themselves were often not up to the ideals mentioned at the
beginning of the chapter. We have seen the restrictions they have included in their theories, and there
were intolerant measures as well, such as the expelling of Elias Gczmidele and the silencing of the priest
Miklós. This, however, should not diminish our appreciation for what they did. For it was indeed a
remarkable enterprise to adhere to at least the minimum of religious tolerance even in the midst of the
partiality demanded by the task of organizing the church.
149

1. From the immense literature of the issue the following comprehensive works should be
highlighted: Johannes KÜHN: Toleranz und Offenbarung. Leipzig 1923. -- Joseph LECLER:
Geschichte der Religionsfreiheit im Zeitalter der Reformation I--II. Stuttgart 1965. -- Erich
HASSINGER: Religiöse Toleranz im 16. Jahrhundert: Motive-Argumente-Formen der
Verwirklichungen. Basel--Stuttgart 1966. -- Lech SZCZUCKI: Heterodoksja XVI. wieku wobec
problemu tolerancji religijnej. In: ORP XIX. 1975. 65--78. -- Zur Geschichte der Toleranz und
Religionsfreiheit hsg. von Heinrich LUTZ, Darmstadt 1977. (Wege der Forschung CCXLVI.)
2. Comprehensive works containing reference bibliographies regarding the Eastern Central
European situation: Janusz TAZBIR: Powojenne badania nad tolerancja religijna w Polsce. In:
Przeglad Historyczny 60. 1969. 554--561. IDEM: Dzieje polskiej tolerancji. Warszawa 1973. --
Stanislaw GRZYBOWSKI: The Warsau Confederation of 1573 and other acts of Religion
Tolerance in Europe. In: APH 40. 1979. 75--96. -- Pawel SKWARCZYNSKI: Szkice z dziejów
reformacji w Europie srodkowo-wshodniej. Londyn 1967. -- József BARCZA: A vallási türelem
elvi alapjai a XVII. század magyar protestáns teológiájában [The underlying principles of
religious tolerance in 17th century Hungarian Protestant theology]. In: TheolSz XXI. 1978. 282--
291.
3. POKOLY: Az unitarizmus Magyarországon 244.
4. +Neque vero mater pia phreneticum abiicit filium, sed eum curat, et omnibus modis
restituere pergit: Doctores et ministri Ecclesiae, qui instar matris praeficiuntur eius auditoribus,
idem facere ex officio et verbi divini praescripto debent." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii A3r.
5. +ut libere scribere, docere, maledicere et quicquid tandem volunt, in hac cause agere
illis libera potestas datur." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii A3v.
6. ROTONDL: Verso la crisi 184.
7. +Cur autem Maior non potius maiorum suorum, boni ipsius Melanchthonis piae
memoriae, deinde D. Johannis Brentii, Johannis Odenbach, Sebastiani Franci et similium piorum
iudicium de corrigendis haereticis sequitur." Refutatio scripti Georgii Maioris B3r.
8. +Porro quod ad nimium tepefactam charitatem, quae unicum est pacis vinculum, ad
farraginantium turbam, et ad placidos nostri seculi trucidatores attinet, cum animorum nostrorum
sententiam Sebastiano Castalio vir eruditione, vitaeque integritate insignis in suorum Bibliorum
praeliminari epistola diserte exprimat." De regno Christi )(v.
9. The literature on the subject is unaware of this chapter of Castellio's influence. Neither
Hans R. GUGGISBERG: Sebastian Castellio im Urteil seiner Nachwelt von Späthumanismus bis
zur Aufklärung. Basel--Stuttgart 1974., nor the scholarship in Hungary, where he is on record as a
translator of the Bible only, knows about it. This presence is incidentally very important in a
comparison with the Poles as well. For the ideas of Castellio did not have any effect in Poland in
the early phase of Antitrinitarianism, with the exception of Budny. For this, see Lech
SZCZUCKY: Polski przeklad Dialogu Castelliona. In: Archiwum historii filozofii i mysli
spolecznej 9. 1963. 143--145.
10. +Accipe igitur, rex hunc laborem comiter et humane, et lege sacras literas animo pio,
ac religioso, teque ad regendum regnum sic praeparare, tanquam mortalis, et rationem redditurus
immortali Deo. Optamus tibi Mosis clementiam, Davidis pietatem et Salomonis sapientiam." De
regno Christi )(4v.
150

11. For this, see Roland H. BAINTON: Castellioniana. Quatre études sur Sébastian
Castellion et l'idée de la tolérance. Leiden 1951. -- Werner KAEGI: Castellio und die Anfänge
der Toleranz. Basel 1953. -- Elisabeth FEIST HIRSCH: Castellios +De arte dubitandi" and the
Problem of Religious Liberty. In: Autour de Michel Servet 244--258. -- Steven E. OZMENT:
Mysticism and Dissent Religious Ideology and Social Protest in the Sixteenth Century. New
Haven--London 1973. SZCZUCKI: Heterodoksja 70--73.
12. SZCZUCKI: Heterodoksja 72--73.
13. Camillo RENATO: Opere, documenti e testimonianze. ed. Antonio ROTONDL.
Firenze--Chicago 1968. 119--120.
14. Johannes CALVINUS: Opera quae supersunt omnia. eds. G. BAUM, E. CUNITZ, E.
REUSS Brunsvigae 1876. 52--63. (Corpus Reformatorum XV.). The author of the work written
under the pseudonym Alphonsus Luncurius Tarragonensis is Lelio Sozzini, according to
CANTIMORI: Eretici italiani 175--178., while KOT: L'Influence de Michel Servet 87--94. has
Celio Secundo Curione in mind. Most recently the name of Matteo Gribaldi has been put foward
by Uwe PLATH: Noch einmal über +Lyncurius". Einige Gedänken zur Gribaldi, Curione, Calvin
und Servet. In: BHR XXXI. 1969. 583--610. -- See also GILLY: Spanien und der Basler
Buchdruck 317--318.
15. OCHINO: Dialogi in duos libros 382--386.
16. For him, see Erick HASSINGER: Studien zu Jacobus Acontius. Berlin--Gruenewald
1934. -- Paulo ROSSI: Giacomo Aconcio. Milano 1952. -- Ch. D. O'MALLEY: Jacopo Aconcio.
Roma 1955. -- SZCZUCZKI: Heterodoksja 73--77. -- Paolo CRISTOFILINI: Aconcio e
l'Anticristo, In: Rinascimento, 24. 1984. 53--79. as well as the works listed in John TEDESCHI:
The cultural contributions of Italian Protestant Reformers in the Late Ranaissance. In: Libri, idee
e centimenti religiosi nel Cinquecento italiano, Roma, 1986. 108. See also DBI T. 1. (1960.) 154--
159. (Delio CANTIMORI) and TRE T. 1. (1977) Erich HASSINGER.
17. Sommer's work -- De Stratagematis Satanae libri octo Jacobi Acontii in quinque
redacti ac alicubi copiosius explicati a Johanne Sommero Pyrnense. A. D. 1570. -- has survuved
in the Matthew Codex of Thoroczka. Provenance and reference: Biblioteca Filialei Cluj a
Academicei Sociale Romane, Anexa nr. II. Cluj-Napoca. Ms. U. 1669. 851--925. Cf. Antal
PIRNcT: Die Ideologie 188--190.
18. +In illius itaque librum, quem Stratagemata Satanae inscripsit, cum incidissent fratres
eumque diligentissime evolvissent, viderunt scilicet Dominum illi hoc, quod paucis aliis dedisse,
ut simul et jucunda et idonea dicere vitae possit, et omne punctum ipsorum quidem calculo ferret."
De Stratagematis... libri... a Johanne Sommero... 852.
19. In the literature on the subject this has been formulated most clearly by SZCZUCKI:
Heterodoksja 72.
20. +Negavit piis ac prudentibus magistratibus in veros haereticos animadvertendi
potestatem, ne eorum exemplo impii atque imprudentes in pios abuterentur dei servos. Cum igitur
lex ista piorum dei servorum gratia sit lata, ne aliquando perverso iudicio quasi haeretici mortis
poena multarentur, cavendum est, ne talis admittatur interpraetatio, ut cum videatur sibi
magistratus legi parere, tamen legislator finem, cuius gratia legem tulit, non adipiscatur." Jacobi
Acontii Satanae Stratagematum libri octo Ad Johannem Wolphium eiusque as Acontium Epistulae
Epistula apologetica pro Adriano de Haemstede Epistula ad ignotum quendam de natura Christi.
151

ed. Gualtherus KOEHLER: Monaci Tubingae 1927. 84.
21. +Agnoscimus ex verbo Dei contra Antichristi somnia supremum magistratum civilem
habere potestatem animadvertendi in ministros Ecclesiae, cogendi synodos, eligendi arbitros ad
dijudicationem questionum, quae in causa religionis emergunt." Refutatio scripti Petri Melii A3r.
22. Elsa része... a predicatiocnac 2r.
23. A nagyváradi disputatio. Kiadta Lajos NAGY és Domokos SIMÉN [The disputatio of
Nagyvárad. Edited by L.N. and D.S.]. Kolozsvár 1870. 130--131.
24. Az egy Atya Istennek Ccc2v.
25. Az egy Atya Istennek Hhh3v.
26. For this in more detail, complemented with new documents, see Mihály BALcZS: A
Válaszúti-komédia hátteréhez [On the background of the Válaszúti comedy/farce], ..........
27. +Monendus etiam saepe est populus, non fieri cuique ab apostolo dicendi potestatem in
ecclesia, ut tanquam in foro liceat quicquid in buccam venerit, sed, quum ei, cui patefactum quid
fuerit, loquendi potestatem facit, abesse omnem vult temeritatem, impudentiamque." Jacobi
Acontii Satanae Stratagematum 105.
28. PIRNcT: Die Ideologie 29.
29. PIRNcT: Die Ideologie 21--32. Cf: RMNY App. 31.
30. +Accedit et hoc, quod dum de una alique re litigatur perpetuo, reliqua magis necessaria
in oblivionem veniunt, ac ob istud unum, pius ab impio, haereticus a christiano discernitur, etsi
vita alioqui proba sit et sobria. Exempla praebent superiora paulo tempora, ubi ob res christianismi
non plane praecipuas horribiliter laceratae sunt ecclesiae, haeretici schwermeri appellati multi,
quorum egregia in instauranda pietatis doctrina extitit opera. Interim aut omnis morum disciplina
collapsa, ita ut quae primum evangelio gloriatae sunt urbes, iam praeter nomen evangelii vix
quicquam habeant." De Stratagematis... libri... a Johanne Sommero... 868.
31. De Stratagenatis... libri... a Johanne Sommero... 895--904.
32. Described in RMNY 288. Modern editions: Budapest 1915. Zoltán TRLCScNYI (Régi
Magyar Könyvtár 36.) and Budapest 1979. Péter KYSZEGHY (Magyar Tallózó).
33. Recently a monograph has been published on the famous work, containing its text and
its Spanish translation: Nicolas Castrillo BENITO: El +Reginaldo Montano" primer libro
polemico contra la inquisicion espanola. Prólogo de Ioaquin Pérez VILLANUEVA. Madrid 1991.
-- See also the bibliographies on the probable authors. Antonio del Corro -- Bibliotheca
Dissidentium T. VII. 1985. 121.--176. -- Arthur Gordon KINDER; -- Cassiodoro de Reyna --
Bibliotheca Dissidentium T. IV. 1984. -- Arthur Gordon KINDER. Továbbá: B. A.
VERMASERN: Who was Regionaldus Gonsalvius Montanus. In: BHR XLVII. 1985. 47--77. --
IDEM: The Life of Antonio del Corro (1527--1591) befor his stay in England, in: Archives et
Bibliotheques de Belgique LVII. Nr. 3--4. 1986. 530--568. and LXI. Nr. 1--2. 1990. 175--273.
34. GILLY: Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck 373--385.
152

35. For this, in more detail, see Mihály BALcZS: Heltai Hálójának forrásáról és
eszmetörténeti hátteréral [On the source and the intellectual historical background of Heltai's
Háló], in: ItK, XCVII. 1993. 167--196.
36. László SZÖRÉNYI: Heltai Gáspár és az inkvizíció [G.H. and the Inquisition].
Világosság, 24. 1980. 639--643. (In Italian: La traduzione antitrinitaria fatta da Gáspár Heltai del
manifesto contro l'inquisizione di Reginaldo Gonsalvo. In: Antitrinitarianism in the Second Half
243--251. GILLY: Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck 378.
38. +Tuum quoque est, Serenissime Transsylvaniae Rex, quem pene in sinu imprudens
foveas circumspicere, ne ex eo regno quod tibi mirabiliter Dominus tot jam annos conservet, et
nuper etiam sibi incepit consecrare, quispiam ipso Mahumete nihilo melior, authoritate regii tui
nominis abutens, in universum Christianum orbem impetum faciat, magis certe nociturus animis
quam si vel Moschus vel Tartarus vel Turca insigni aliqua victoria potiretur." Correspondance de
Théodore de Béze IX. (1569) 246.
39. +In calce horrendum postae canit classicum, Serenissimum Regem Poloniae et
Serenissimum Regem Transsylvaniae ad saviendum in nos adhortando." LUBIENIECKI: Historia
reformationis 229.
40. +Sed interea bona spes nos tenet fore, ut prudentissimi illius regni proceres et
potissimum Serenissimum Rex Hungariae Johannes Secundus, de quo omnium priorum magna est
expectatio, legitima remedia in tempore nascenti malo adhibeant." SIMLER: De aeterno O3r.
41. +Misi ego nuper ad hunc Johannem Regem fasciculum litterarum vestrorum
principum, quem mihi diligentissime commendarat doct. Tremellius, huic, frater D. Admirali, qui
est in Anglia; ita litteras non inepte tui Dialogi sequerentur." Correspondance de Théodore de
Béze IX. (1569) 194.
42. For this mission in detail, with the text of the letters, see: Theodore SCHOTT: Herzog
Ludwig von Württenberg und die französischen Protestanten während des dritten Religionskrieges
1568-1570. In: Festschrift zur 4. Säkular-Feier der Eberhard-Karls-Universität zu Tübingen.
Stuttgart 1877. 53--68. -- See also June SHIMIZU: Conflict of Loyalities. Politics and Religion in
the career of Caspard de Cologny Admiral of France (1519--1572). Geneve 1970. 126--131.
(Trauaux d'humanisme et Renaissance CXIV.)
43. +...insuper novas veteresque amicitias, et foedera jungebant, nunciosque aut epistolas
vel in remotissimas provincias pro pecuniis ab communis religionis hominibus colligendis
dimittebant, ita ut etiam Polonos et Johannem II. in Transsilvania requisiverint." Ferenc
FORGcCH: De statu reipublicae Hungaricae... commentarii (Monumenta Hungariae Historica
Scriptores. XVI. Pest 1866. 410.)
44. In addition to their prolonged polemy with international Protestant authorities, an
example of these efforts is the copy of De falsa et vera (described in RMNY No. 254.) that bears a
dedication to Queen Elizabeth I of England on its manuscript frontispiece. Indeed, this dedication
might be associated with the events referred to in Lasicki's letter. If it was really written early in
1570, this assumption could just hold water, i.e. we may be witnessing here an attempt to include
the Antitrinitarians in the Protestant union urged by the Queen of England.
45. For a review of this recently found opus, see Gedeon BORSA: 16. századi magyar
nyomtatványok Stuttgartban [16th century Hungarian printed publications in Stuttgart], in: MKsz
96. 1976. 42--60. See also MAKKAI: Un catechisme hongrois 90--91.
153

46. The following works also provide information on further literature Béla KIRcLY:
Tolerance and Movements of Religious Dissent in Eastern Europe, New York--London 1975. --
Ludwig BINDER: Grundlagen und Formen der Toleranz in Siebenbürgen bis zur Mitte des 17.
Jahrhunderts. Köln 1976. (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 11.) -- Gábor BARTA: Bedingungsfaktoren
zur Entstehung religiöser Toleranz in Siebenbürgen, in: Luther und Siebenbürgen hsg. Georg und
Renate WEBER Köln--Wien--Böhlau 1985. 229--244. -- IDEM: L'intolérance dans un pays
tolérant: la principauté de Transylvanie au XVIe siecle. In: Les frontieres religieuses en Europe
du XVe au XVIIe siecle ed. Robert SAUZET Paris 151--158. (De Petrarque a Descartes LV).
47. EOE II. 343.
48. EOE II. 374.
49. ZOVcNYI: A magyarországi protestantizmus 27.
50. EOE II. 302--303.
51. Cf: Miroslaw KOROLKO: Klejnot swobodnego sumienia Polemika wokól
konfederacji warszawskiej w latach 1573--1658. Warszawa 1974. 8.
52. For these debates with more literature, see KOROLKO: Klejnot swobodnego sumienia.
53. ZOVcNYI: A magyaroroszági protestantizmus 23.
54. EOE II. 368.
55. +...in ea incidimus tempora, ut tuto de veritate non liceat inquirere. Taceo publica, quid
sentias, profiteri." JAKAB: Dávid Ferenc II. 12.
56. POKOLY: Az erdélyi református egyház 230--231.
57. +Id quod serenissimus Princeps noster in publica synodo Albae graviter praemonuit
fertque aegrius, mihi crede, et mihi mandavit serio significare tibi, ut iam tandem a convitiis et
maledictis cessaretis, neque quiquam novi scripti excuderetis citra Ecclesiae iudicium et
consensum, aut inconsulta eius Majestate. Nullo enim modo feret deinceps famosos versiculos, aut
libellos convitiis scatantes in publicum prodire, unde lectores christiani offendantur et ministros
Christi immodestiae culpent, propter quos male audiat ecclesia Dei." Published in: Magyar
Protestáns Egyháztörténeti Adattár [Documents of Hungarian Protestant Ecclesiastical History]
VIII. 1910. 157--158.
58. Béla VARJAS: A magyar reneszánsz irodalom társadalmi gyökerei [The social roots
of Hungarian Renaissance literature], Budapest 1982. 224--225.
59. István VADAI: Az eposztól a ponyváig [From epic to trash], in: ItK XCVI. 1992. 683.
Back
CONCLUSION
Although the conclusions of my inquiries were formulated at the end of each chapter, it may be
worth while to sum up the most important results at the end of the book as well.
154

We have seen that the Antitrinitarianism that unfolded in the late 1560s in Transylvania had a
peculiar aspect, which was partly the result of its belated appearance. All the solutions that earlier
generations of European Antitrinitarianism had produced were available for the Transylvanian
Antitrinitarians emerging around 1566. This resulted in a peculiar syncretism especially in the field of
Christology, which was an attempt to bring the Christologies of Servet and the two Sozzinis into
harmony. This effort towards synthesis is nowehere else so marked, and pointing out that fact may be an
important novelty of the present work. Thus, unlike earlier Hungarian literature on the subject, I do not
claim that the Antitrinitarians in Transylvania followed a completely new road, or were merely dependant
on Servet, but I also deny that as followers of Lelio and Fausto Sozzini they were simply arguing with
Servet. What they intended was to synthesize these conceptions, whose pillars were the denial of Christ's
preëxistence and the moral philosophical idea explicated in detail in Servet's Christianismi restitutio. This
effort to syncretize is in itself a sign of meditative reception, paradoxically deepened by the successes of
propaganda. The fact that the Antitrinitarians were joined by members of the Transylvanian nobility and
later even by ruling Prince John Sigismund not only made sectarian locking up impossible, but served as
a permanent urge to elaborate theological solutions acceptable for the whole Protestant camp. The
religious debates conducted with the participation of the Prince undoubtedly testify to this readiness to
agree since it was the interest of the monarch that the politically uncertain and ethnicallly multicoloured
principality should not be divided by sharp religious controversies as well. That again caused the
Antitrinitarians to continuously think about the tenability of their position, thus promoting the
clarification of the inner contradictions of their views also for themselves. This compulsion of reflection
as well as the uncertainty of his position was formulated expressis verbis by Ferenc Dávid, significantly
in a letter to Palaeologus. That is, he turned with his doubts to the thinker who would be active in
Transylvania in the early 1570s, and whose theology had a profound influence on the later developments
of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism.
Probably I will also have proved that this opennes was not limited by the fact that the
Transylvanian Antitrinitarians drew on the European Anabaptist tradition as well. This definitely relates
them with the Polish brethren, but we have seen the significant differences, too. The analysis of the works
on the issue of baptism shows not only that this was not in the focus of their theology, but also that the
presence of a rather elastically formulated antipaedobaptism has to be registered as the dominant
tendency. This can be demonstrated in Hungarian polemic writings, and it can be documented that the
passages were chosen in accordance with that when they undertook to publish in De regno Christi certain
chapters of Servet's Christianismi restitutio. Unfortunately, on the other hand, we know precious little
about the practical activities of the Antitrinitarians in Transylvania. It cannot be ruled out, however, that
this silence of the records should be regarded as very meaningful. What I mean is that even their enemies
never recorded that they rebaptized with immersion those who joined their congregations, while we have
data about that from Poland. Thus, it would seem that in Transylvania the main tenor was the criticism of
paedobaptism, the only practical consequence being that the believers did not have their children
baptized.
On the other hand, I hope I have shown that the Antitrinitarians in Transylvania very strongly
reinterpreted Anabaptist socioethical doctrines, which had much more profound influence in Poland. I
regard every word of this statement as important. Therefore, I think it should be stressed that they
discussed these issues in the language of the Anabaptist tradition as well as that this tradition was
significantly reinterpreted and adapted to the conditions in Transylvania. We have seen that duirng the
period under discussion no book was published in Transylvania either in Hungarian or in German that
would have popularized an imitation of +pauper Christus", the like of which led in Poland to the Raków
experiment. The Transylvanians did not forbid their faithful to hold offices, the idea of property
community being far from them, nor did they want to realize Evangelical morals through walking out of
this sinful world. Thus Transylvania saw a rather peculiar reception of Anabaptist doctrines. This made it
possible to have charity, modesty, meekness and temperance in the focus of its moral philosophy, but
there was no question about enforcing the consequences of these in a way the various currents of post-
155

Münster Anabaptism did. Perhaps the case of Elias Gczmiedele indicated most clearly that those probing
for rigorous pacifism or community of property were not listened to and had to leave Transylvania.
The parallel examinations of the works and praxis have shown that despite the common elements
there were significant differences between the Antitrinitarians in Transylvania and in Poland. All this
would also explain why Palaeologus was received so differently, for it is well-known that the theology of
the Greek heretic, who had radically broken with Anabaptist tradition, was passionately rejected by
Grzegorz Pawel and his followers, while there is no trace of such polemies in Transylvania.
These differences are also reflected in the ecclesiological views of the Transylvanians. Their
Antitrinitarianism achieved quick successes and spread widely by the Antitrinitarian preachers taking the
places of Catholic priests and/or Protestant pastors, which made the development of their own church
organization and system of intitutions possible. It is probably due to this remarkably fast change of
positions that the Transylvanian developments in the 1560s cannot be straightforwardly described with
the usual formula of a movement stiffening into a church. For what could be observed in the above was
not only the presence of tactical and political considerations in the propaganda of Transylvanian
Antitrinitarians, but also that in many cases ideas were adopted from their sources on the basis of aspects
of church organization. We have seen that they attached an addition to Servet's Christianismi restitutio to
the effect that missio ordinaria was a precondition for preaching the gospel. On the other hand, when
analysing Sommer's paraphrase of Acontio, we concluded that the reason that work had not been printed
was its passionate arguing for communis prophetia. We have seen that Blandrata and Dávid did not
approve of everybody preaching freely, without restrictions, of the complete disappearance of the
difference between believers and professional pastors. They held that the role of the congregations was to
decide between the preachers preaching differing views.
All this clearly indicates that the leaders of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism very early appeared
as persons organizing a church, and the anarchy, which developed for instance in Raków, Poland, was
totally alien to them. Of course, all this involved setting up restrictions, but I still think one of the most
important features of the Antitrinitarianism in Transylvania was the absence of the development of a rigid
ecclesiastic structure. That can only partially be explained by the fact that Transylvanian
Antitrinitarianism was deeply permeated with the idea of religious tolerance. This is an important
circumstance, worth emphasizing in a comparison with the Poles. Thus the case in Transylvania was not
that the intolerant, fanatic Antitrinitarian preachers had to be restrained and warned to be moderate by
secular powers, but these preachers, proclaiming their views with conviction, having imbibed also a
modicum of tolerance, put it to use in the service of church organization.
The later history of Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism was probably more deeply affected by the
peculiar church political situation outlined in the introduction above, which remained essentially
unchanged till the death of ruling Prince John Sigismund. Its most important feature appeared in a
particularly marked way in the resolution of the diet at Marosvásárhely in 1571. For this should strike one
as peculiar that the bishop had no jurisdiction over the priests in matters spiritual, i.e. in what they taught,
but had the right to condemn priest who had committed secular offences. In Europe this was usually the
other way round, and we may not be far from the truth considering it very important in that Transylvanian
Antitrinitarianism was able to hang on to its open and multi-coloured nature.
I have regarded the subtle outlining of these features as my job, and this would be the third
position I promised while sketching the science historical situation in the introduction. Since I regarded
the discriminating formulation of analyses of details as part of my task, it is of secondary importance for
me what terminology to use for this group of phenomena instead of Anabaptistic Antitrinitarianism.
Aspects of science history also support the acceptance of Williams' solution, who in his monograph
discusses the events in Transylvania under the title Transylvanian Antipaedobaptical Antitrinitarianism.
It would follow from our examinstions, however, that this term should denote not only the Transylvanian
156

position that became dominant in the restricted field of baptismal doctrine, but the entire theology. It
would obviously have to include the Christology described above as well as the socio-ethical views or the
ideas concerning religious tolerance. Only equipped with this additional meaning will the term be able to
cover the Transylvanian particularities that could explain the query posed in the preface as to why the
dogmatic radicals of the 1560s and 1570s found more attentive ears in Transylvania.
All this does not mean that the theology of Palaeologus, Sommer, Neuser, Glirius and Francken
can be straightly derived from the Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism of the 1560s. Obviously, their sources
included many other trends of European heterodoxy and philosophy, nor can we say that their doctrine
was accepted without resistance by the Antitrinitarian church as a whole. For it is a cliché in the literature
on the subject that they were active more on the borderlines of the churches, maintaining an ambivalent
relationship full of conflicts with the Antitrinitarian church of Transylvania as well. This relationship was,
of course, different in every case, and the present work could not undertake an examination into that.
Also, further researches into details are necessary to show how diversity survived among Transylvanian
Antitrinitarians nearly until the middle of the 17th century. However, it cannot be denied that the
persistent endurance of this peculiar aspect cannot be understood without a consideration of the
beginnings described above.
157

APH Acta Poloniae Historica
Back
List of abbrevations
ARG Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte
BHR Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance
DB Dizionario biografico degli italiani
EOE Erdélyi Országgyolési Emlékek -- Monumenta comitialia regni
Transylvaniae ed. Sándor SZILcGYI 1540--1699.
1--21. Bp. 1875--1898.
ErdMúz Erdélyi Múzeum
ItK Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények
KM Keresztény Magveta
MKSz Magyar Könyvszemle
ORP Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce
ProtSz Protestáns Szemle
RMNy Régi Magyarországi Nyomtatványok -- Res Litteriaria Hungariae Vetus
Operum Impressorum, 1473--1600. eds. Gedeon BORSA et alii, Budapest 1971.
RP Reformacja w Polsce
TheolSz Theológiai Szemle
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie
158

Back
II.
SERVET'S +CHRISTIANISMI RESTITUTIL" AND
+DE REGNO CHRISTI"
(Table of correspondences and differences)
Christianismi restitutio De regno Christi
1. 312--313. B2v
Ex his quorundam errorem perpende, qui ex
huius regni coelestis introitu nobis impossibili, servum
arbitrium sinistre concludunt, cum potius sublimitas
regni erat concludenda. Nam cum regnum Christi sit
regnum spiritus, et nos simus animales homines,
transitus iste de carne ad spiritum, qui est introitus in
regnum Christi, per eius cognitionem et fidem, non est
in humanis viribus situs. Sed fieri debet patre trahente,
illuminante, et ex gratia vocante: quia non est volentis
neque currentis, sed Dei miserentis. Ex hoc tamen
inferre servum arbitrium perinde est, ac si dicas: non
possum volare, ergo habeo servum arbitrium. Imo ut
sublimitas gratiae Christi dignoscatur, oportet aliquas
ab origine nobis esse vires ad ea tamen Christi dona
impotentes. Ea siquidem est vera gratia, cum dono tu
confers ea, quae nostris viribus adipisci non poteramus.
Quod autem hunc lapidem estollas, quae gloria, aut
quod artificium. Sed de his alibi.
2. 315. B4v
Nunquam fuit aliquis Iudaeorum electus, aut
predestinatus ea electione, qua nos praedestinavit Deus,
ut liberam filiorum adeptionem reciperemus, et
essemus fratres Christi. Ephes. 1. et Rom. 8. Et Moses
et prophetae sub lege erant, non sub gratia, legis
159

servituti et observationi erant abnoxii.
3. 319. C4r
Ioannes baptista fuit totus sub
lege, non fuit baptismo Christi ad
caelestia regenitus, cum obierit ante
resurrectionem.
Ioannes baptista fuit totus sub lege, cum obierit
ante Christi resurrectionem.
160

4. 296--297. E4v
Ad ipsum esse filium Dei plura
sequuntur, quam hic possint referri:
praeserrim quae de homousio, de
potentia, et gloria, de visione, cultu, et
adoratione Dei alibi diximus.
5. 298. F2r
Fidei essentia male diffinitur esse ipsius
intellectus cognitio, cum fides nec in intellectu sit, nec
cognitio, licet cognitioni sit adiuncta. Ita fidei ipsi
cognitionem adiungi, docuit Barnabas a Clemente
Alexandrino citatus libr. 2. Stromatum.
6. 299. F2v
Obiiciunt deinde: Fidem non esse actum, sed
habitum, ut charitatem, iustitiam, et alias animae
virtutes morales. Respondeo: Anima nostra est actus,
vera ........., actio continua. Substantia lucis est, quae lux
semper est actus, agitatio continua, et iugis energia.
Eius modi vivens energia est fides vera, et de substantia
lucis. Tam animae cognitiones, quam morales ipsae
virtutes, sunt omnes luminosae formae. Sunt actus
activi, quanquam habitus dicantur, quoniam radicantur
et firmiter haerent. Eadem est substantia, et essentialis
species eadem, actus et habitus. Non aliter differunt,
quam lux transiens, et lux manens. Actus durans sit
habitus, et actus alius superveniens, cum eo copulatur,
ut lux cum luce, calor cum calore. Usque adeo fides est
actus, ut etiam in dormiente agat, et crescat, teste
Christo. Concedentes ergo, fidem primam ex actu fieri
habitum, eam quoque postea actum dici affirmamus, ne
sub illo habitus nomine sopita videatur.
7. 300. F3r-v
Ad ipsum esse filium Dei, plura sequuntur,
quam hic possint referri: praesertim quae de potentia et
gloria, de visione, cultu adoratione Dei.
Non est falsa Christi visio, nec Non est falsa Christi visio, nec falsa imago,
falsa imago, quam nobis infundit spiritus quam nobis infundit spiritus ipse Christi, qui veram in
ipse Christi, qui veram in nobis imprimit nobis imprimit imaginem filii.
ideam filii, cum luce divina creatam
notitiam. Est enim in luce Dei referens
idea.
161

8. 301--303. F3v
Quod non ideo est, ut aiunt Magi et Manichaei, quod sint animae nostrae ita necessario adstrictae.
Sed quia donatis quaedam sponte abutuntur, quaedam sponte seu libere bene utuntur. Quare hic a nobis
aliquid exigit Deus? Quare punit non facientes? Quia ipse dedit, vt possimus. (He goes on defending free
will in a similar spirit, then provides a physiological explanation of faith and will.)
Ex his omnibus, hoc in summa
colligimus, a corde esse liberam
voluntatem. Fidem in corde esse aut non
simpliciter liberam, cum ad eam
ratiocinatio vera intellectus exigatur, et
spiritus sancti motus. Nunquam tamen
datur fides, nisi volent libero.
9. 329. I3r
Dispersit, dedit pauperibus, iustitia eius manet
in seculum seculi, psal. 111.
10. 341. M4v
Opus hominis maximum ait esse
Deum diligere, et maius quam Deo
credere.
11. 344. N3r
Hanc charitatis vim in tractatu de coena domini
cognosces adeo efficacem, ut substantialiter ob id nobis
adiungatur Christus, secundum carnem et ossa. Nec hoc
solo dono nos his donat Christus, sed et pro ea coenae
charitate in resurrectione rependet certam gloriae
mercedem Lucae 14.
12. 346. Or
Quia tamen plerique de ipsis
senistre philosophantur, volo et ego
meam philosphiam in medium profere.
Ex iis omnibus hoc in summa collegimus, fidem
in corde esse, at non simpliciter liberam, cum ad eam
ratiocinatio vera intellectus spiritus sancti motis
exigatur.
Opus hominis maximum ait esse Deum diligere.
Quia tamen plerique de ipsis sinistre
philosophantur, volo uimus et nos nostram opinionem
in medium proferre.
162

13. 347. Ov
Ultra omnem volitionem oportet ipso motu
membra rebellia vincere, ac contratarios actus superare.
Et hoc, quod difficilius in actu superest, est summe Deo
gratum. Christus quia in omnibus vincebat humanum
affectum, ut faceret semper voluntatem patris, ideo fuit
semper gratus patri. Egregium est nobis exemplum.
Quanquam in Christo non est rebellio peccati, tamen
caro semper actum mortis exhorrescabat. At Christus ut
patri complaceret, et quia nos amabat, non solum libero
animo interne consensit: sed et externum actum libere
prosequutus est, etiam cum lachrymis, sudore
sanguinis, clamore valido, carnis multiplici dolore, et
cruciatu maximo. Hoc non faciebat Christus ex servo
arbitrio, sed mere libere, ex dilectione erga patris
voluntatem, et erga nos miseros. Actus ergo ipse pluris
fuit quam ipsa volitio, quam semper habuit Christus:
quia in exsecutione sibi ipse vim maximam fecit, adeo
ut ex ipsi conatu erumperet sudor ut guttae sanguinis
concreti. Luc. 22.
14. 349. O2v
Non ita producitur ab habitu
actus, nec a fide opus, ut ab igne calor:
sed spontaneus cordis motus, et conatus
liber accedit. Alioqui nunquam non
operaremur, et ut iumenta duceremur,
cum servo nostro arbitrio.
15. 478 O2r
Excommunicationis vis in tractatu de coena
cognescetur. Nam quando reus quis persistens
deprehendebatur, a coenae communione arcebatur.
Haec erat excommunicatio, magnae efficaciae, ob
magnam vim manducationis ligni vitae, sine qua quis
efficitur aridum lignum. Bestia vero Babylonica
imaginariam habet excommunicationem...
16. 410. V4r
Precamur igitur, o domine Christe Iesu,
adveniat regnum tuum. Regnet in terra veritas tua.
Circumcide, domine, cor nostrum, ne a serpente
Non ita producitur ab habitu actus, nec a fide
opus, ut ab igne calor: sed spontaneus cordis motus et
conatus liber accedit. Alioqui nunquam non
operaremur, et ut iumenta duceremur.
163

amplius superemur. Da servo tuo, militi tuo, ut contra
draconem serpentem diabolum, qui potestatem Bestiae,
id est, Papae dedit, potentia tua magna viriliter pugnet,
et sequentia circumcisionis mysteria ita aperiat, ut liber
tuus omnibus aperiatur. Tu enim ipse, qui mentiri
nescis, Danieli revelasti, utriusque testamenti libros,
stante Romano imperio, destructa bestia, esse
aperiendos, ut nunc aperiuntur. Et quod tunc iudicium
tuum in caleo sedebit, et pugnantibus ministris tuis
cornu Antichristi perdatur, et regnum tuum sanctis tuis
restituatur, Dani. 7. Lege haec omnia, lector, et fidem
adhibe scripturis sanctis. Aut saltem patientiam habe,
donec sequentia melius intelligas.
17. 448. X2r
Ut verbum Dei, virga Aaron, est Ut Virga Aaron est vere immutata, ita et
vere incarnatum: ita et magorum opera magorum opera factum est simile in Papatu, in
factum est simile in papatu, in spirituali spirituali Aegypto, ut bestia de maris abysso ascendens,
Aegypto. Incarnatus est ibi Satanas, ut fieret in terris Papa.
bestia, de maris abysso ascendens fieret
in terris Papa, sicut verbum Dei de caelis
descendens, factum est in terris homo,
hic Christus, ille Antichristus.
18. 448. X2v
De ranis, quas ex paedobaptismi
flumine, cum fide quadam satyrica trium
ranarum, tribus qualitatibus infusis,
educunt Papistici et magi, dicemus paulo
post.
19. 457. Zr
De ranis quas ex Sophistarum flumine, cum fide
quadam satyrica et ranarum tribus qualitatibus infusis,
educunt Papistici magi, dicemus paulo post.
Hic ipse rex Abaddon est ille Hic ipse rex Abaddon est ille Achab, cuius
Achab, cuius seculo reaedificata est seculo reaedificata est Iericho, cuius seculo sunt servi
Iericho, cuius seculo sunt servi Dei Dei occisi et profligati, cuius seculo clausum est
occisi et profligati, cuius seculo clausum coelum ad tres annos cum dimidio, donec missus Elias
est caelum ad tres annos, cum dimido, omnes sacerdotes Baal exterminavit. Hic est ille, a quo
donec missus Elias, omnes sacerdotes coacti sunt homines flectere genua ante Baal, paucis
Baal, paucis exceptis, qui interfecti sunt, exceptis, qui interfecti sunt, aut delituerunt.
aut delituerunt.
20. 457. Zv
164

Triplex est differentia
Triplex est differentia mysteriorum Christi.
mysteriorum Christi, ante incarnationem Ante carnem in umbra, secunda in carnis in infirmitate,
in umbra, per incarnationem in corporis tertia post resurrectionem in gloria et potentia.
infirmitate, post resurrectionem in gloria
et potentia.
21. 459. Z2r
Eandem mysteriorum legis et Christi
spiritualem tertio factam repetitionem ex Eliae tertio
adventu licet comprobare. Nam repetitus est post
Ioannem baptistam Elias, et denuo ante finalem
resurrectionem venturus dicitur, ut restituat omnia.
Mala 4. Matth. 17. et apoc. 11. Convertet cor patrum ad
filios, et cor filiorum ad patres: simile reddet cor
nostrum cordi, et menti apostolorum, et recordari nos
faciet illius primae ecclesiae.
22. 478. BB3v
Vice apostolicarum, et caelestium
clavium habet Papa claves putei abyssi,
ut magnam inde locustarum vim, ad
homines excruciandos in terram emittat.
23. 670. SS2r
O Christe Jesu, fili Dei, liberator
clementissime, qui toties populum ab
angustiis liberasti, libera nos miseros ab
hac Babylonica Antichristi captivitate,
ab hypocrisi eius, tyrannide, et idolatria.
Amen.
24. 533. FF4r
Est et illud mysterium Antichristi de potestate
clavium coelestium, quas ille in claves putei abyssi
convertit, ita ut magnam locustarum vim ad homines
excruciandos in terram emittat.
O Christe Jesu, fili Dei, liberator clementissime,
libera nos miseros ab hac Babylonica Antichristi
captivitate, ab hypocrisi eius, tyrannide, et idolatria.
Amen.
Non hoc in baptismi
Non hoc in baptismi contemptum, sed quia
contemptum, sed quia evangelii euangelii praedicatio praecedere debet, quia maior in
praedicatio praecedere debet, quia maior evangelizando, quam in baptizando peritia requiritur, et
in euangelizando, quam in baptizando quia catechismus ad salutem sufficere poterat, et quia
peritia requiritur, et quia Paulus alios Paulus alios comites habebat, qui baptizabant, ipse
comites habebat, qui baptizabant, ipse
quoque aliquando baptizans.
quoque aliquando baptizans.
165

25. 534--535. GGv
Fingamus tamen, alienam fidem An num fides quempiam salvabit, quam
sufficere, et videamus, qualem in tuo ignorat? Sed demus, quod in fide parentum, vel
paedobaptismo fidem trium spirituum ecclesiae (uti volunt) vita aeterna dari possit, an num
ranarum habuerunt patroni tui. Ostensum sanam fidem eam quis existimabit, quae fuit in
est in libris de trinitate, eos veram Christi tripersonatum Deum et Christum illum, qui de spirito
fidem ignorasse, et adhuc ignorare. Ergo sancto conceptus non est? Baptismum ne probabit,
paedobaptizatus non potest dici in fide quem in sinagoga et satanae ecclesiae accepit, et
Christi baptizatus, nec a Christi quidem a ministro Antichristi? Sed de iis alias fusius.
ministris, nec in Ecclesia Dei: sed in
Babylonica et satanae synagoga. Denuo
igitur nos oportet innovari, sicut denuo
efficietur regnum huius mundi domini
nostri Jesu Christi, postquam proiectus
fuerit accusator iste Babylonicus, qui ob
praeceptorum suorum transgressionem
nos semper accusat, apo. 12. Denuo
cantantes halleluja, ad vivos fontes
aquarum, et caenam agni vocabimur,
postquam impetu magno ceciderit
Babylon, apo. 6. et 19. Si fidem habentes
sunt denuo baptizati, acto. 19. quanto
magis qui nullam habuerunt? Observa
doctrinam, ut intelligas, quae fides in
baptismo requiratur. Nam quidam ante
passionem baptizati, iterum postea
baptizabantur, quidam vero non. Qui a
Ioanne baptizabantur, de futuro Christo
loquente: ii postea iterum docebantur, ut
praesenti Christo crederent, acto. 18. et
tunc iterum baptizabantur, act. 19. Nam
Christi baptismus fidem requirit, ipsius
Christi iam praesentis, ut Pauli ratio ibi
docet. Qui vero ab apostolis baptizati,
vel apotoli ipsi ante passionem baptizati,
Christo in praesenti credebant, ii vere
dicebantur in fide Christi aqua baptizati,
nec alio doctrinae aut aquae baptismo
indigebant,
sed solo spiritus indigebant, sed solo spiritus
complemento. Baptismus itaque Ioannis non erat vere baptismus
Christi, sed praeparatio ad futurum, ut Paulus docet, et superiore
libro ego satis exposui. Non solum in baptismo requiritur fides
Christi, sed fides Christi tibi iam praesentis, et iam propitii.
Quod fides item ante baptismum
requiratur, docet ordo et via perveniendi
ad ecclesiam Dei. Nonne oportet
accedentem credere? Nonne Christus est
via? Nonne fides est ostium? Hoc nos
quaerimus, Qui sint filii Dei? Illi
quidem, in quibus est spiritus ......... Gal.
Videamus nunc, quomodo via perveniendi ad
ecclesiam Dei et ipse ordo fidem praecedere debere
baptismum ostendat, et primum expendes? An
accendentem ad Deum credere oporteat? An num
Christus sit via? fides ostium? et per fidem efficiamur
filii Dei Galatarum 3. et 4. Romanorum 8. et Ioannis
166

4. et Rom. 8. qui et per fidem filii Dei,
Ioan. 1. et Gal. 3.
primo?
26. 548. HH4v
Nascimur in baptismo ex aqua, Nascimur in baptismo ex aqua, spiritu, et igne
spiritu et igne, Matth. 3. Lucae 3. Ioan. Matth. 3. Luc. 3. et Ioann. 3.
3. Simul hic intelligentur creata et
increata, ut simul erant in Christi
generatione. Ex illis omnibus
ostendemus, animam essentialiter
constare atque ita nunc innovari. Ea
omnia in Christi generatione fuisse
divina et humana unum facientia
elementa, in libris de trinitate docuimus:
in eius regeneratione esse omnia
innovata, eiusque instar in nobis desuper
innovari. Ex supernis nos denuo
nascimur, ut ab eis maledicta terra
transformetur, ablavatur, et vivificetur.
27. 560. II2r
Quamuis baptismum fides
tempore praecedat, et aliquando
baptismum spiritus praecedat aquae
baptismus, in fide semper factus: tamen
operatione divina sic denuo
coniunguntur illa tempora, ut simul fide
et baptismo idem effici dicas, cum in
baptismo sit fidei complementum.
28. 433. OO2v
Non est Christus nunc mortuus,
ut successore indigeat: nec absens, ut
vicarium seu vices gerentem desideret.
Ille vivit, ille nobis sufficit, ille nobis
Ex supernis nos denuo nascimur, ut ab eis
maledicta terra transformetur, ablvatur, et vivificetur.
Quamuis baptismum fides tempore praecedat,
tamen operatione divina sic denuo coniunguntur illa
tempora, ut simul fide et baptismo idem effici dicas,
cum in baptismo sit fidei complementum.
Non est Christus nunc mortuus, ut successore
indigeat: nec absens, ut vicarum seu vicesgerentem
desideret. Ille vivit, ille nobis sufficit, ille nobis vere ut
167

praesens est, ille nobis vere ut pontifex
ministrat, ut melius postea videbis in
interno homine.
29. 438. PP2v
In caenae sermone hoc intelliges,
et qualiter noster caelestis pontifex, lex
et sacerdos, nobis interne ibi ministret:
quod si in terris adhuc esset, facere non
posset. Solus ergo est nobis caelestis
potifex, qui omnia pontificatus mysteria
solus complevit, sine Babylonicis
figmentis.
30. 575. PP4v
pontifex ministrat.
Solus ergo est nobis coelestis pontifex, qui
omnia pontificatus mysteria solus complevit sine
Babylonicis figmentis.
Nolunt nos cum Christo regnare, Nolunt nos cum Christo regnare, quia non
quia non permittunt nos cum eo permittunt nos cum eo resurgere.
resurgere. Vae vobis paedobaptistae, qui
clauditis regnum caelorum ante homines,
in quod nec vos intratis, nec alios sinitis
intrare. Vae vae.
31. 412--414. QQ2r
Triginta annorum Christus Mysterium magnum est, triginta annorum
baptismum accepit, exemplum nobis Christus baptismum accepit, exemplum nobis dans, ac
dans, ac nos ita docens, ante eam nos ita docens, non ut trigesimum expectemus annum,
aetatem non esse quem satis aptum ad sed idoneum Christum confidendi tempus. Christus
mysteria regni caelorum. Qui igitur noster baptizatus fuit, cum de patre suo ipse nobis
Christianus imaginem Christi sequi vult, annuntiare institueret: aptum ergo nobis accedendi ad
instar eius debet ad lavacrum regenera- baptismum tempus erit, cum palam fateri, et annuntiare
tionis accedere. Ex superiore libro possumus Jesum esse Christum filium Dei pro iustitia
constat, post aetatem commissorum nostra mortuum et siscitatum. Quemadmodum nobis
peccatorum sequi debere lavacrum adulta etate Adam per inobedientiam paradisum
peccata diluens. Ex Adamo quoque et perdidit, sic nos per aetatem legitimam paradisum,
lege probatur haec aetas. Sicut primus quem adulta aetate Christus nobis restituit, quarere
Adam tricesimo anno nascitur, ita cum opertet, non noster Christus annum nobis praefigere
secundo nos tricesimo anno renascimur. voluit, cum ante et post annum trigesimum apostoli
Sicut adulta aetate paradisum perdidit ferme omnes et discipuli baptizarint, sed tempus
Adam, sponte inobediens: ita adulta baptizandi maturum, cum de fide quoque nostra in
aetate paradisum restituit Christus, Christum testari et evangelium annunciare possumus.
sponte obedientibus. Idipsum in figura
ostensum est. Num. 4. ut solum post tricesimum
annum assumantur, quibus
liceat ingredi sanctuarium, id est,
regnum caelorum: in quod per lavacrum
168

illud ingredimur, facti veri sacerdotes.
Item non solum unctione illa sacerdotali
nos in baptismo ungimur, sed et unctione
Davidis in regnum et sacerdotium
sanctum, Zacha. 12. David vero anno
tricesimo in regem est unctus, 2. Samu.
5. Ioseph ab Aegypti carcere in regnum
translatus est anno tricesimo Genes. 41.
Ministros Dei solum a tricesimo recipit
David, I. Para 23. licet ad cathechismi
ministeria a vicesimo anno habeatur
idoneus. Veri igitur Christi ministri, qui
per baptismum fiunt omnes reges et
sacerdotes, et sanctuarium ipsum, id est,
regnum caelorum ingrediuntur, non pueri
carnis sed viri spiritus esse debent. (He
continues arguing for the thirtieth year.)
32. 416--417. QQ4r
Iterum atque iterum te precor, o lector
Christiane, ut possis mecum in bestiam valide pugnare,
hunc modum implendi legem in animo tuo firmum
repone, modum spiritualem. Christus est impletio legis.
Ipse solus omnia in seipso implevit, et implet in nobis
eius imaginem sequutis. Prophetiae quaedam possunt in
nobis seorsim impleri, ut in Roma implentur prophetiae
Babylonis, in Iuda Iscariote prophetiae Achitophelis, in
Ioanne baptista prophetiae Achitophelis, in Ioanne
baptista prophetiae Eliae. Legis tamen ipsi Mosi datae
mysteria omnia ipsum Christum respiciunt, et in eo est
omnium plenitudo. Colos. 1. et 2.
169

I. Libr.
Back
APPENDIX
I.
+DE FALSA ET VERA" and Transylvanian and
Polish printings between 1567--1568
De falsa et vera Printing between 1567--1568
Poland Transylvania
cap. II. Quonam pacto... Rövid magyarázat
1567
cap. III. De origine et
progressu...
cap. IV. De horrendis
simulacris...
II. Libr..
1567
Rövid magyarázat
Császmai: Az Anti
christus képei (?) 1567
cap. I. Quomodo Christus... Rövid magyarázat
1567
Antithesis pseudo Christi
1568
cap. II. De discrimine Legis... Rozdzial Starego... 1568 Rövid útmutatás
1567
cap. IV. De uno Deo Patre... Okazanie y zborzenie... 1568
170

Cap. V. Prima confessionis... Okazanie y zborzenie... 1568 Rövid magyarázat
1567
cap. IX. Locorum fere
omnium...
cap. X. Brevis explicatio in
primum Ioannis...
cap. XII. Brevis explicatio in
primum Colossensum
cap. XIII. Brevis explicatio in
primum ... ad Hebraeos
cap. XIV. Phrases
aequipollentes...
Wyklad mieysc... 1568 (?)
Zgodne a iedne rzecz... 1568
(?)
Rövid útmutatás
1567
Brevis enarratio... 1568
Rövid útmutatás
1567
Brevis enarratio... 1568
Antithesis pseudo
Christi 1568
Aequipollentes ex
scriptura... 1568
cap. XV. Voces ambiguae... Wyklad mieysc... 1568 (?) Aequipollentes ex
scriptura... 1568
171

Back
III.
NOTAE MEMBRORUM REGNI CHRISTI
Prima: Si postquam crediderint in unum Deum Christi patrem, qui gratis nobis per filium in spiritu
sancto vitam largitur aeternam. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum filium eius de spiritu sancto
conceptum in utero virginis, et iis, quae sequuntur in symbolo apostolico, soli Dei verbo adhaeserint, in
eoque scrutando asiduam dabunt operam, posthabitis omnium hominum commentis.
Secunda: Si deserta Babylone, et illius doctrinis, idolomaniis, et superstitionibus reiectis, se in
meliores, et liberas ecclesias receperint.
Tertia: Si spiritu mentis regenitos ita senserint, ut pravis moribus in bonos commutatis, se quoque
novos homines esse cognoverint.
Quarta: Si in timore et tremore, spe et silentio, fide vero non hesitante, coram Domino et
hominibus ambulaverint.
Quinta: Si cruibus placide sublatis pro persequentibus se et maledicentibus oraverint.
Sexta: Si seduli erunt in orationibus privatis et publicis, et verbi praedicatione, et sacramentis
ecclesiae oblectabuntur.
Septima: Si pauperum non erunt immemores: et in promovenda Dei ecclesia erant soliciti.
Octava: Si propter conscientiam honeste et fideliter servierint dominis, et propriae vocationi
responderint, seque in alienas messes ultro non obtuserint.
Nona: Si erunt parati ad reddendam rationem fidei suae unicuique petenti. Et placide, amanterque
de fidei articulis disserendo, neminem iudicabunt, iudicium ecclesiae relinquendo: omnibusque omnia
effici contenderint, nemine offendiculum (quantum est in ipsis) praebentes.
Decima: Si minime ebriosi, avari, procaces, scortatores, adulteri, superbi, iniuriive fuerint.
Undecima: Si viduarum, orphanorum, pululorumque curavi gesserint. Si absque ullo personarum
delectu iustitiam administrarint.
Duodecima: Si misericordes erunt, mites, pacifici, elemosinis dediti, et sol non occiderit super
illorum iracundiam.
Decima tertia: Si erunt magistratibus oedientes, non otiosi, sed laborantes manibus suis.
172

Decima quarta: Si religionis ergo neminem trucidandum esse censuerint, cum possint infirmi
servari, et errantes in viam a domino reduci, et usque ad missem zizania extirpanda non sunt.
Decima quinta: Summa, principium, medium, et finis homini Christiani est (postquam crediderit)
charitas cum humilitate iuncta, quae spiritualia aemulatur, patiens est, casta, sobria, minime curiosa,
charitas cum humilitate iuncta, quae spiritualia aemulatur, patiens est, casta, sobria, minime curiosa,
omnia sufferens, omnia pie credens, omnia sperans, non invidens, non inflata, non fastidiosa, sed benigna,
misericors, mansueta, modestaque. Demus ergo operam, ut Dei patris imitemur charitatem, qui usque
adeo nos dilexit, ut unigenitum morti pro nostra salute traderet, et DOMINI JESU, quoad fieri poterit,
humilitatis vestigia sequamur, qui cum esset in forma Dei, formam servi sumpsit, et humilem praebuit
semetipsum usque ad mortem crucis. Docens nos, ut qui fieri maior vult in regno coelorum, fiat omnium
in hoc seculo minor.
(De regno Christi Q3r--Q4v.)
Back
173

174