New Page

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Mihály Balázs: THE BEGINNINGS OF
Page 3 and 4: In the work below I am trying to ou
Page 5 and 6: joined them as well. By the mid-156
Page 7 and 8: Contents I. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF TRAN
Page 9: They used this argument at the Syno
Page 13 and 14: In Lelio Sozzini's Brevis explicati
Page 15 and 16: edition of the work was also publis
Page 17 and 18: A thorough comparison of the texts
Page 19 and 20: work, he concludes with the followi
Page 21 and 22: position of the Polish Antitrinitar
Page 23 and 24: minimal. At times he introduces cha
Page 25 and 26: issues, sharply opposing the positi
Page 27 and 28: lifted up, Jn 12."76 The thought th
Page 29 and 30: cording to the Spanish heretic, the
Page 31 and 32: possibilities of +beginning" in the
Page 33 and 34: thing, we shall have to consider th
Page 35 and 36: understand the hidden mysteries of
Page 37 and 38: taken away."105 Thus what we arrive
Page 39 and 40: manifested with varying intensity.
Page 41 and 42: More important than establishing th
Page 43 and 44: equally important. It is particular
Page 45 and 46: published much earlier than August.
Page 47 and 48: Ioannes proves this in Chapter 19 o
Page 49 and 50: work. At the same time, it is clear
Page 51 and 52: (Dávid is less original in compari
Page 53 and 54: 1. Friedrich TRECHSEL: Die protesta
Page 55 and 56: 14. Described in RMNY 228. 15. Desc
Page 57 and 58: 36. Barna NAGY: Méliusz Péter mov
Page 59 and 60: 65. Rövid magyarázat 35. 66. +...
Page 61 and 62:
91. +Ut vero rem totam ostendamus,
Page 63 and 64:
understand what we can or have to t
Page 65 and 66:
142. +Nos non dicimus, praedestinat
Page 67 and 68:
Back II. The BAPTISMAL DEBATES IN T
Page 69 and 70:
Sozzini, and then a number of edify
Page 71 and 72:
doctrines mentioned above. None of
Page 73 and 74:
This difference at the assumed end
Page 75 and 76:
found more than 400 heresies in the
Page 77 and 78:
if it was possible for the apostles
Page 79 and 80:
interesting. Number XX declares tha
Page 81 and 82:
He is obviously at odds with the He
Page 83 and 84:
The addition by Dávid and Blandrat
Page 85 and 86:
Polish opus was published under the
Page 87 and 88:
The Transylvanian reinterpretation
Page 89 and 90:
also adhere to it."78 It is also we
Page 91 and 92:
wherein they set forth in detail th
Page 93 and 94:
42. +Baptismus est depositio sordiu
Page 95 and 96:
70. +... Krystus thez zadnego choc
Page 97 and 98:
changes is easier to see. It was lo
Page 99 and 100:
member doing its duty toward the ot
Page 101 and 102:
seventies, this might with good rea
Page 103 and 104:
Therefore, it would seem that, cont
Page 105 and 106:
Trinity. Therefore, it would seem t
Page 107 and 108:
habentibus servum arbitrium, sed ho
Page 109 and 110:
Back IV. THE SOURCES AND THE SPECIF
Page 111 and 112:
and/or request the millennial kingd
Page 113 and 114:
the same interpretation. Of course,
Page 115 and 116:
course in the case of the humanist
Page 117 and 118:
1. The following works provide summ
Page 119 and 120:
sunt, poterit demonstrare? De rebus
Page 121 and 122:
would seem proper to start with the
Page 123 and 124:
followed by a small insertion descr
Page 125 and 126:
were also called up for service. Un
Page 127 and 128:
There was one more interesting, and
Page 129 and 130:
Dávid, who says that the Catholics
Page 131 and 132:
great extent on what interpretation
Page 133 and 134:
1. For its most marked formulation,
Page 135 and 136:
Clarence BAUMANN: Gewaltlosigkeit i
Page 137 and 138:
is the error the authors have tried
Page 139 and 140:
subject realistic and practical wit
Page 141 and 142:
their theses wherever they saw best
Page 143 and 144:
and would not permit Sommer's work
Page 145 and 146:
Christian world, which would certai
Page 147 and 148:
period under discussion treated the
Page 149 and 150:
Similar problems of interpretation
Page 151 and 152:
11. For this, see Roland H. BAINTON
Page 153 and 154:
35. For this, in more detail, see M
Page 155 and 156:
We have seen that the Antitrinitari
Page 157 and 158:
position that became dominant in th
Page 159 and 160:
Back II. SERVET'S +CHRISTIANISMI RE
Page 161 and 162:
4. 296--297. E4v Ad ipsum esse fili
Page 163 and 164:
13. 347. Ov Ultra omnem volitionem
Page 165 and 166:
Triplex est differentia Triplex est
Page 167 and 168:
4. et Rom. 8. qui et per fidem fili
Page 169 and 170:
illud ingredimur, facti veri sacerd
Page 171 and 172:
Cap. V. Prima confessionis... Okaza
Page 173 and 174:
Decima quarta: Si religionis ergo n
show all

New Page

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?