1 Introduction
John Amos Comenius (1592â1670), the pastor of Leszno and superintendent of the Bohemian Brethren, wrote in 1655 after the outbreak of the PolishâSwedish War:
The situation both inside and outside the country was so bad that it could not get any worse. Outside were barbaric enemies wanting to kill and rob us; inside, treacherous friends that threatened both religious and political freedom. Things got to the point when Poland [â¦] could rather be regarded as the corpse of a Commonwealth.1
Comenius, who graduated from leading Calvinist schoolsâHerborn Academy and Heidelberg Universityâwas at the time regarded as an important member of the elite European Republic of Letters.2 The pages of his works featured all the key ideas of âinternational Calvinismâ: from millenarian apocalyptic thought to a rational philosophical core and the irenic hope of uniting Protestantism.3 Like many Reformed theologians, Comenius was also a refugee.4 At the outset of the Thirty Yearsâ War, he was forced to leave Bohemia together with other members of the Bohemian Brethren, finding a safe haven in Poland in 1627.5 When he wrote the aforementioned words, warning about the attack of âbarbariansâ and âtreacherous friends,â the five-year war between Poland and Sweden (1655â60), described in Polish historiography using the apocalyptic term âDeluge,â had only just begun. Yet it was not the Swedish âDelugeâ that convinced the Bohemian thinker to formulate such a dramatic assessment. On the contrary, the theologian believed that Carl X Gustav, the Lutheran ruler of Sweden, was Polandâs only hope. Not only did Comenius praise the virtues of the pious monarch, but he also admonished the king to follow good advice and cautioned him against sycophants and âMachiavellists.â Above all, however, he suggested that Carl Gustav should safeguard the Polish liberties because âthe only way he would be able to command free men was in a manner worthy of the free.â6
A fundamental role among these liberties was played by the Warsaw Confederationâan agreement adopted by nobles in 1573 that guaranteed freedom from religious persecution.7 Like many other religious agreements in Europe, it did not feature the word âtoleration.â As a document that had to be approved by subsequent monarchs of the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth, the Confederation secured the status of Protestants. In the mid-seventeenth century, however, the Catholic majority and hierarchs of the Catholic Church were increasingly often able to challenge it and limit the political freedoms enjoyed by Protestants.
Comeniusâs panegyric was published in Latin as an anonymous pamphlet. It immediately attracted great public interest and was reprinted in WrocÅaw (Breslau), Nuremberg, Frankfurt, London, and Paris.8 Nevertheless, the clergymanâs separation of patriotic feelings for his new homeland from loyalty to the ruler resulted in charges of treason, reiterated in nineteenth- and twentieth-century historiography.9 The odium of betrayal was extended to broader Protestant circles10 and then blamed on the Antitrinitarians, who had long benefited from the protection of the Swedish king. In the history of the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth, Comeniusâs writings and their reception mark the borderline between the long-standing traditions of the tolerant sixteenth century and the intolerance of the 1600s.
The historiographic vision that praised the religious freedom of the sixteenth century criticized the intolerant seventeenth century and glorified the eighteenth-century toleration created by luminaries of the Enlightenment. It portrayed toleration as the intellectual achievement of thinkers, philosophers, and theologians, who paved the way for the Enlightenment and, by extension, modern society.11 Prominent Polish historians of the Reformation and Protestantism shared this vision: StanisÅaw Kot, Marek Wajsblum, Ludwik Chmaj, Janusz Tazbir, and Zbigniew Ogonowski. Recently, it has been backed by Wojciech Kriegseisen, who claimed that âinsofar as the early-seventeenth-century Commonwealth still ranked amongst the most tolerant European countries, it lost this position in the centuryâs second half. It was probably then that the syndrome described as a Pole equals a Catholic was begotten, with the result that dissenters were excluded from the community of the Commonwealthâs citizens.â12
In this traditional vision, a special placeâboth on account of the origins and fate of their community as well as the specific identity and image they shapedâwas occupied by Antitrinitarians, referred to by their opponents as âArians,â by themselves as âPolish Brethrenâ (Fratres Poloni), or by the historians as âSociniansâ (after Fausto Sociniâs arrival in Poland in 1578). The Antitrinitarian Church in Poland was founded following the split of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church organization in the mid-sixteenth century (between 1556 and 1565).13 This schism within Calvinism quickly led to a situation where Antitrinitarians were not just persecuted by the Catholic Churchâwhich was against Protestants in generalâbut also by the main Protestant churches and, most fervently, by the Calvinists themselves. The first attempts at enacting a royal edict against Antitrinitarians date back to 1563â66 and brought about orders of confiscating and burning selected works as well as orders of exile.14 At the time, certain Catholic bishops (particularly Stanislaus Hosius) and the then papal nuncio (Giovanni Francesco Commendone) took issue with these royal edicts, afraid that banishing one Protestant confession would be regarded as de facto approving others.15 These restrictions only entered into force half a century later, when the Antitrinitarian community transformed its identity as a result of Fausto Sociniâs (1539â1604) influence.16 In 1638, the church, printing house, and academy in Raków (Racovia), which had served as the center of Socinianism, were all closed down. Soon the creed published by the Socinians was burnt (1647); ultimately, they were forced to either convert or leave the Commonwealth (1658), which ended the era of broad toleration.17 When Comenius called for the rights and guarantees of freedom for Protestants in 1655, he was definitely not thinking of Antitrinitarians.
These attitudes toward Antitrinitarians were a consequence of the relationship between the dominant (Protestant or Catholic) orthodoxy and the limited and excluded heterodoxy, which was marginalized both politically and socially. Traditionally, these relationships tended to be subjected to apologetic or accusatory interpretations, which drew heavily on arguments formulated in polemics printed in the seventeenth century. In the light of those arguments, fighting for the rights of heterodoxy wasâin the eyes of its apologistsâseen as a struggle for toleration and respect for the rights of a unique group that stood out on account of its âmorality, rationality and patriotism.â18 In turn, its opponents saw the advocates of heterodoxy as unpatriotic traitors19 who struck at the social and religious order.20
The historiographic vision that served as the backdrop for this interpretation of Antitrinitarian persecutions, employingâexplicitly or implicitlyâthe category of progress, has often been criticized in recent years. On the one hand, researchers of social history, such as Benjamin J. Kaplan, pointed to the tradition of coexistence between many religions and confessions in a single territory.21 On the other hand, some cultural historians argued that until the eighteenth century, âat root, it [toleranceâMP] was a form of intolerance itself. It must be conceptualized less as the opposite of persecution than as a subspecies of it, or its alter ego.â22 Looking for a term that could describe the ambivalent interrelationship between toleration and persecution, Alexandra Walsham proposed the phrase âcharitable hatred.â23 According to this logic, there was no contradiction between the demand for toleration of oneâs own position and the exclusion of opponents. In addition, the demands formulated by Comenius could easily be describedâto quote Andrew Pettegreeâas a âloserâs creedâ: a position taken for pragmatic reasons by persecuted minorities, ready to change their beliefs along with a change of the forces at play.24 However, one might ask whether this would also be an appropriate characterization of the position of Antitrinitarians.
In search of an answer to this question, it is worth proposing a different outlook on the history of Antitrinitarians, without the presentism of both apologias and accusations. The question about the relationship between toleration and persecution ought to take account of the context of formulated judgments, which compels one to present statements against a broader theological and intellectual background. Theological debates deserve to be carefully interpreted not just as the history of abstract doctrines but also as a fragment of the history of thought, referring to the world of values and its very rich history of polemics.
Below, these hypotheses are backed by an analysis of the beliefs professed by Jonas Schlichting, the main theologian and leader of the Polish Brethren at the time of their persecution and exile. The analysis mostly relies on Schlichtingâs polemics published during his lifetime and omits his exegetic works published after his death in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum series.25 The theologianâs biography and publications are discussed first, followed by his theological views, with an emphasis on Trinity, Christology, and soteriology as well as his attitude toward ecclesiastical and secular power. The main thesis of these further deliberations is that Schlichting, a Socinian theologian, tried moving the Polish Brethren closer to Calvinism. In response, the Catholic Church (and most likely Protestant churches) used state institutions to first burn his Confessio in Warsaw in 1647 and then banish the Antitrinitarians in 1658. The Polish Brethren then joined the group of religious exiles, including European migrants and other religious refugees: the Bohemian Brethren (exiled from the Habsburg monarchy in 1548 and 1627), the Huguenots (1685) or earlier English Protestants (1553â58), as well as numerous clerics of individual communities forced to abandon their homeland following a change of the given monarchâs confession.
2 The Man and His Work
The general outline of Jonas Schlichtingâs biography is well known.26 The theologian was most likely born in 1592 in SÄ czkowo near Åmigiel to a German noble family. He was the son of Wolfgang Schlichting (d. 1608 or 1612) and Barbara, née Arciszewska. Having received a thorough education, between 1620 and 1638 he was active as a polemicist as well as a pastor and tutor in Raków, where he worked closely with John Crell (Johannes Crellius, d. July 4, 1633). After the Raków center was closed down in 1638, Schlichting moved to LusÅawice with a part of the congregation. Then, in 1639, the synod commissioned him to write a creed, which was printed in 1642.27 Its publication coincided with preparations for the Colloquium Charitativum, ultimately convoked by King WÅadysÅaw IV Vasa in ToruÅ in 1645 to reconcile the Protestant and Catholic churches. Schlichting arrived there with a delegation of the Polish Brethren but was not admitted to the talks.28 During the Diet (Sejm) that convened in Warsaw on May 9, 1647, his Confessio fidei was put on trial. Schlichting was accused of insulting the divine majesty and the Commonwealth (crimen laesae Divinae Maiestatis et Reipublicae).29 On May 11, 1647, a copy of the creed was ordered to be publicly burned in Warsaw, and any further dissemination and ownership of the book was banned. Schlichting himself was sentenced to death, infamy, and confiscation of property. After the verdict, the theologian often changed his place of residence. During the âDeluge,â he arrived in Cracow, which had been taken by Carl X Gustav of Sweden. There, he resumed his writing activity and continued it until his death in 1661.
His polemical and exegetic writings may be chronologically divided into three stages: early polemics, published between 1625 and 1637; preparation and publication of his creed (1639â42); and texts published after 1643, including his late polemics (for the most part unpublished) and apologetic and catechetical writings.
In the first period (1625â37), Schlichting entered into a series of polemics with the Reformed clergyman Daniel Clementinus (d. 1644)30 and the Lutheran Balthasar Meisner (1587â1626).31 The tract by Clementinus that provoked Schlichtingâs reaction, causing him to reach for the pen, was published in Cracow in 1623.32 The Calvinist minister had been attacking Antitrinitarians since 1618, disputing with Hieronim Moskorzowski and Szymon Pistorius, as well as criticizing the Socinians in his public speeches (e.g., at Jan GliÅskiâs funeral in 1624).33 Clementinusâs publication did not just result from his colorful temperament; it was a conscious and thought-out decision of the Reformed Church of Lesser Poland, which decided to revise and print the work and then pursue a follow-up at the convocation and synods taking place in 1623â26.34 In 1630, Clementinus published another treatise, entering into a direct polemic with Schlichting.35
Schlichting wrote his lengthy rejoinders in Polish and published them in 1625 (Reply) and 1631 (Reply to a Reply to a Reply), dedicating them to the protector of the Reformed Church and Bohemian Brethren, RafaÅ LeszczyÅski.36 He also annotated his Reply ⦠with an afterword addressed to âgentlemen evangelicals,â whom he cautioned against trusting pastors, particularly those âwho, being teachers, would not gladly stomach becoming pupils.â37 To make his work even more accessible, Schlichting translated the quotes cited by his adversary from Latin into Polish.38
The three parts of his rejoinder corresponded to the structure of Clementinusâs Antilogiae â¦: namely, exoneration, defense of the Polish Brethrenâs creed, and demonstration of the differences between Socinians and Calvinists. In the first part, the Socinian disposed of the traditional arguments raised against Antitrinitarians. The catalog of accusations had remained unchanged for several dozen years: the Polish Brethren were said to deny the divine nature of Christ and the meaning of his sacrifice, reject the Holy Spirit, undermine the concept of original sin and predestination, and have a predilection for Judaism. Schlichting also refuted allegations concerning the conduct of Socinian ministers, who, for more than a decade, had been blamed for not always living in line with the regime of poverty they preached.39 The Socinian ended with a fierce objection to the style of Clementinusâs writing, peppered as it was with insults against Socinians, among which âtrampsâ and âwiseacresâ were among the more reserved.40
In his second work disputing with Clementinus, Schlichting rightly noted that it was not an independent work of the Reformed theologian.41 Even though, as he writes, âthe identity of this patron is easy to guess,â Schlichting never actually named him. We now know that it was most likely co-written by Bartholomäus Bythner (BartÅomiej Bythner, d. 1629) and Tomasz WÄgierski.42 In his second reply, Schlichting noticed that the Reformed theologian borrowed several of his arguments from the treatises of the Lutheran Balthasar Meisner,43 commenting that âif God permits, Meisnerus too shall have his reply.â44 He probably began work on a new disputation at around the same time.45
Schlichting must have realized that Meisner was one of the foremost theologians of Lutheran Orthodoxy. Already in 1613, at barely twenty-six years of age, Meisner took the position of chair of theology at Wittenberg University and was one of the main adversaries in the dispute concerning the relationship between theology and philosophy sparked by Daniel Hoffmann, a professor from Helmstedt.46 He also took a stand in the krypsis-kenosis controversy raised by professors from Tübingen and GieÃenâthe most important and momentous dispute in Lutheran Orthodoxy of the first half of the seventeenth century.47 Schlichting completed his polemic with Meisner in 1635, not knowing that the theologian had already been dead for nine years.48 In the following years, the Socinian issued more extensive versions of his debate with the Wittenberg professor, broadening it by subsequent topics.49 In 1637, Schlichting published his third and last polemic with Meisner, preceded with a foreword addressed to the clergymen and scholars of all Christian churches in Europe.50
The first work directed against Meisner, which was also a defence of Fausto Socini, originated with the question of whether being free from sin and leading a life of holiness (vitae sanctitas) were required for salvation (ad regnum Dei possidendum).51 Schlichting defended the thesis that committing sins did not ipso facto entail being a condemned soul.52 This problem touched upon the most important elements of Protestant thought: the concepts of justification through faith and predestination as well as the meaning of Christâs sacrifice and good deeds. Schlichting discussed all these issues a year later, reprinting extensive fragments of Quaestio⦠and adding a lengthy passage on the attitude toward lay authority, war, and heretics (Quaestiones duae). His last polemic (De ss. Trinitate) was a defense of Sociniâs stance on God and the Trinity, the figure of Christ, the Holy Spirit, fulfilling the dictates of the Law, and attitudes toward the Old Testament, Eucharist, and baptism. In his vast, 1,000-page opus, Schlichting quoted, explained, and commented on extensive fragments of Sociniâs writings53 and Meisnerâs work54 where the Lutheran theologian was attacking Socinianism.
Schlichtingâs selection of adversaries in this first stage was not accidental: these were young theologians of Protestant Orthodoxy, who quickly worked their way up the career ladder and attacked other confessions with arriviste zealotry. By taking up these disputes, Schlichting defined the place of Antitrinitarians among the Protestant churches in the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth. Having published his polemics, the theologian devoted himself to working on the creed (1639â42), which concluded this stage of building confessional awarenessâof both Schlichting himself and the Polish Brethren. During this time (1637â43), the Socinian ceased to publish polemical works. Only after the publication of his Confessio fidei did he reach back for his polemic pen, entering into discussions with Hugo Grotius, Georg Vechner, and the Jesuit MikoÅaj Cichowski. However, he chose not to publish a second, lengthier disputation with Grotius or Comenius.55 His exchange of opinions with Johann Ludwig von Wolzogen retained a similarly private character. During that time, Schlichting defended his creed and worked on a revised version of the Racovian Catechism.
He issued his first polemic against Hugo Grotiusâs treatise in 1643 under the pseudonym Simplicius.56 Chmaj assumed that Schlichting published the work âacting on the instructions of his fellow believersâ but decided to use a nom de plume âto hide the origin of the book.â57 The irenic atmosphere of the end of the Thirty Yearsâ War, which encouraged talks between the divided confessions, was not conducive to religious disputes. At the same time, one ought to remember that the Sociniansâ attitude to Grotius was extremely complex. This close collaborator of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt used his pen to openly support Remonstrants, with whom Socinians were closely connected, but after their defeat was imprisoned and had to emigrate to Catholic France. He then not only dedicated De Jure Belli ac Pacis, published in 1625, to Louis XIII, but also came closer to Catholicism.58 While his irenic and theological works still featured borrowings from Socinian works, the diplomat openly denied it and polemicized with the theses of Socini and Martin Ruar.59
This is most likely when Schlichting also prepared an extended polemic against Grotiusâs work Votum pro pace ecclesiastica contra Examen Andreae Riveti et alios irreconciliabiles (1642). As the Dutch philosopher died soon afterward (1645) and the situation in the Commonwealth was growing ever more difficult for Schlichting, he never published this disputation, and it was not printed until many years after his death.60 The entire work was a lengthy commentary, in which Schlichting referred to twenty-one theses from Grotiusâs publication, touching upon the matters of Trinity, Christology, justification, original sin, sacramentology, the cult of saints, and the attitude to images. He clearly opposed the philosopherâs rapprochement with Catholicism and rejected any possibility of recognizing the office of the pope.
Then, in 1644, Schlichting published a polemic against Georg Vechner (1589/90â1647), a humanist and Reformed theologian active in Silesia, who collaborated with the Bohemian Brethren and Comenius in Leszno.61 The reason was Vechnerâs sermon, delivered in Leszno and published in 1639, devoted to the prologue of the Gospel of John and the passage âThe Word became flesh.â Vechner dedicated it to Jan Jerzy Schlichting (a member of the Bohemian Brethren and Jonasâs cousin), as well as the secular elites of the Bohemian Brethren.62 In his polemic printed in 1644, Jonas Schlichting questioned Vechnerâs conclusions about the natures of Christ, focusing on the interpretation of the term
In the heated months following his trial and sentencing (1647), Schlichting did not abandon writing and took up a debate with the Jesuit MikoÅaj Cichowski, who had been attacking the Polish Brethren for almost half a century.64 In 1650, Cichowski published a treatise criticizing the Socinian interpretation of the prologue to the Gospel of John.65 This criticism, formulated in Polish, has nowhere near the precision of Latin treatises but contained a number of populist insults. Cichowski saw the proponents of the new faith as âItalian and German trampsâ and outlaws destroying the âancient teachings of faith.â66 In response, Schlichting published a defense of his creed in 1652, to which he added a letter (Epistola Apologetica) prepared two years before.67 In this apologia, he noted that most of the charges âridendum est, non refutandum.â68 He also formulated demands concerning religious freedom, to which Sociniansâas citizens of the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealthâshould be entitled. In his own eyes, he was neither an Anabaptist nor an Arian, but a Christian.69 The sentence passed at the 1647 Diet was an obvious violation of the Warsaw Confederation, the result of scheming on the part of Schlichtingâs opponents, who had earlier caused his exclusion from the Colloquium Charitativum. The theologian framed his defense of Confessio fidei as a commentary to the creedâs pertinent chapters or phrases, elaborating on the theses put forward therein.
In 1651, Schlichting presented a short catechism at the synod, which most likely served as the basis for a new edition of the Racovian Catechism, published in 1659 with a preface written by Joachim Stegmann and Andrzej Wiszowaty (Andreas Wissowatius).70 The last work published during Schlichtingâs lifetime was an apologia directed to the States of Holland and West Friesland in protest against the anti-Socinian decree of September 19, 1653.71
Toward the end of his life, Schlichtingâforced to frequently change his place of residence and occupied with matters of his congregationâceased his publishing activities. During the âDeluge,â he arrived in Cracow, which had been occupied by the Swedes, and joined a committee appointed to publish a commentary on the Gospel of John. According to StanisÅaw Lubienieckiâs account, in Cracow, Schlichting focused on academic activity and steered clear of ongoing political matters.72 These exegetic works were published after his death (1661) in the collection of Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum.
According to a hypothesis formulated by StanisÅaw Kot, in the 1650s Schlichting also polemicized with Johann Ludwig von Wolzogen, elaborating on his views on secular authority, war, and personal defense.73 These works have not survived; Kotâs thesis about their existence and his reconstruction of their supposed content were based on Wolzogenâs rejoinders.
The first extant text that attests to this disputation was penned by Wolzogen and titled Annotationes ad quatuor [!] quaestiones, de Magistratu, Bello etc. etc. quae cum his conjuncta [!] sunt.74 Therefore, Kot assumed that Schlichtingâs work must have been titled Quaestiones de magistratu, bello, defensione privata, which naturally does not result from the title of Wolzogenâs piece (especially because it makes a mention of four issues) but from the title of his subsequent publication, which makes a direct reference to Schlichting. This work by Wolzogen was âa reply to Schlichtingâs remarks about the remarks on war, magistracy, and private defense.â75 It follows that the currently unknown work by Schlichting must have been titled Annotationes in annotationes de bello, magistratu et privata defensione. In spite of the historiographic tradition, there is no unequivocal evidence that would confirm that these works have actually been printed. Although Wolzogen, in both his works, refers to his opponent as the âauthor,â the brief statements by Schlichting that he quotes may come from private correspondence. What is more, their content did not largely diverge from Schlichtingâs beliefs contained in his polemics with Meisner (Quaestiones duae) and the Apologia.76 Therefore, it would seem thatâcontrary to Kotâs suggestionsâif Schlichtingâs works existed in the form proposed by the researcher, they must have remained in manuscript form.
In conclusion, the rare disputations he entered into between 1643 and 1661 served a completely different function to those from 1625 to 1637: instead of defining the place of the Polish Brethren among the Protestant churches, they were meant to defend the Brethren against persistent attacks penned by Catholic polemicists. Apart from the treatise against Vechner, Schlichting chose not to make his disputations public orâas in the case of the first disputation with Grotiusâpublished them anonymously.
Having characterized the individual writings and the nature of disputations pursued by Schlichting, one ought to move to their content, or a systematic interpretation of his theology, with the reservation that his polemical statements merely elaborated on the notions outlined in the works of Fausto Socini, Walenty Smalc (Valentinus Smalcius), John Crell (Johannes Crellius), Samuel Przypkowski, and the Racovian Catechism.77 His thought was founded upon a rational and critical hermeneutics of the biblical message, where a special place was occupied by the Gospel of John.78 Schlichting questioned the traditional Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, modified the theory of predestination and justification, and defended the concept of free will.79 In the spirit of Unitarianism, he rejected the notion of the Trinity, claiming that Christ and the Holy Spirit were subordinated to one God. Analyzing the idea of divinity, he opposed the differentiation between persons and their essence, upon which rested orthodox trinitarianism and Christology. Invoking rational argumentation, he rejected terms that were adapted and worked out by scholasticism and then assumed by Protestant churches.
3 âThat Which Cannot Be Answered Has Been Burntâ (Schlichting)
Schlichtingâs opponents were most stirred by matters of the Holy Trinity. From his very first polemic, the Socinian fervently rejected the concept of the Trinity as one God in three persons. He did agree to use the term âTrinityâ if it were to denote one God, his son, Christ, who was human, and the Spirit.80 Schlichting denied the personhood of the Holy Spirit, treating him as dependent on God: the property and breath of God (Dei afflatus) and an emanation of his power (Dei Donum).81
Christology played a key role in the first polemic texts written by Schlichting.82 He elaborated on it in his debate with Clementinus (1625, 1631) but revisited the subject in 1637 in his third disputation with Meisner, in 1643 in the debate with Vechner, and in the treatise against Grotius. To Schlichting, the most important foundation of his criticism of orthodox Christology was the message contained in the Gospel of John. The theologian argued that Johnâs
At the same time, Schlichting was willing to admit that Christ was God. However, he understood the notion of âdivinityâ differently from his adversaries. The sole fact of being conceived by the Holy Spirit was enough to call Christ the son of God.87 The theologian went on to claim that Christ enjoyed the status of a âmiddle God,â mediating between one God and other divine beings.88 In fact, Schlichting was questioning the homoousion (
One consequence of this stance was questioning the preexistence of Christ: âWe believe in Christ as the true God, albeit not a pre-eternal one.â91 Regarding passages from the Gospel of John (Jn 3:13, 6:62), which referred to Christâs prior sojourn in heaven and his descent therefrom, Schlichting maintained that they referred to an episode from Christâs biography when he was accepted by God during his lifetime, after which he returned to earth.92 Schlichting upheld the notion, denying Christâs preexistence in all his writings, althoughâin his polemic zealâhe sometimes formulated opinions that did not exclude it. In his debate with Vechner, defending the belief that
Christological findings were important on account of their role in the doctrine of justification, as justificationâwhich Schlichting eagerly admittedâwas possible thanks to the sacrifice of Christ and faith. However, he believed that placing emphasis on Christâs services only, and proclaiming justification through faith and predestination, rendered human piety unfounded. As a result, he rejected the concept of justification that ascribed Christâs merits to man (iustitia imputativa). In his opinion, it contradicted the idea of justice and divine mercy.94 Moreover, it deprived humans of motivation to lead a pious life.95 Schlichting also criticized the Anselmian concept of justification as satisfaction (satisfactio) thanks to the sacrifice of Christ.96 Any form of satisfaction contradicted the promise of justification gratis.97 What is more, accepting (apprehensio) Christâs merits constituted an activity, and thus a good deed (bonum opus), which was also at odds with the concept of justification through faith.98 Schlichting was more sympathetic to the concept of the exemplary nature of Christâs passion and death, developed by Peter Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux, although he did not express explicit support thereof.99
In his polemic, Clementinus attacked one of the terms employed by Socini: namely, that Christâs death was merely a âmetaphorical paymentâ (metaphoricum pretium, redemptio metaphorica). Schlichting defended Sociniâs term, emphasizing that the terms âpaymentâ and âredemptionâ could not be understood literally, as neither was anyone paid for anything nor did blood constitute a form of currency. As a result, Schlichting understood the entire message concerning Christâs passion as a âmetaphorâ rather than a literal payment (
Debating matters of justification and the role of Christ inevitably led to questions about predestination and the capacity of humans to influence their salvation. In his disputation with Clementinus, Schlichting was absolutely against the concept of double predestinationâto either salvation or reprobation.101 In his debate with Meisner, he tried to adapt this idea, combining it with the (Philippistic, Semi-Pelagian, or Jesuit) conviction about human will forming part of the act of salvation. Whereas the pre-eternal divine choice is unalterable in genere, it is variable in individuo.102 Godâs pre- and omniscience was only the basis for a âlimited predestination,â103 whereas the number of those elected was open and subject to change.104 Humans could both accept and reject divine mercy.105 Therefore, in the work of justification, they were not a passive object of the Holy Spiritâs actions (like a pillar or a rock) but made a free choice to listen to Godâs word: âWhile faith doth represent a gift from God, he who has it from God, accepted it out of his own free will, and he who has it not, chose not to accept it out of his own free will, even though it was offered to him.â106 Conversion is an act of God inasmuch as God gave man eyes, ears, reason, and will, thus enabling a situation of choice.107 Lutherans (like Meisner) negated the free will (arbitrium) because they identified it with force (
Schlichting wanted to depict the dispute concerning mercy as a conflict about the vision of man. Meisner pessimistically claimed that prior to conversion, man cannot want justification, whereas after conversion, he cannot not desire it.109 Schlichting contradicted this position with an optimistic anthropology, according to which man was a rational creature, able to direct his affects using his own reason.110 The biblical message was also rationalâthat is, cognizable and compliant with reason.111 Moreover, Christians should not believe in dogmas that would be contrary to what reason dictated.112
Faith was not (merely) a gift but a voluntaristic act113 based on cognition and rational choice.114 Schlichting purposefully blurred the difference between fides (a gift from God) and fiducia (trust in God).115 Quoting the definition of faith provided by Socini,116 he proposed that the notion of faith should be expressed as broadly as possible, as a metonym of the entire process of salvation.117
This defense of the concept of free will as well as the possibility (and necessity) of the choice made by man carried with it a recognition of the meaning of human deeds for justification. This is why Schlichting was against Meisnerâs radical opposition between the Gospel (mercy) and law. He admitted that the law required deeds and the Gospel faith, but he believed that faith had to be âaliveâ too,118 in the sense that it should result in repentance and a transformation of oneâs life.119 In another passage, quoting Augustine, Schlichting maintained that predestination concerned not only eternal life but also good deeds.120 Emphasizing the importance of predestination, he wanted to avoid the impression that salvation was caused by human deeds on account of their righteousnessâafter all, they would amount to nothing without mercy.
To Schlichting, such an understanding of human acts and free will was the pillar of both divine justice as well as human morality and piety. It also resulted from his denial of the importance of the original sin, which was a misdeed committed by Adam yet one that did not burden his offspring.121 Ever since their birth, people were more inclined to evil, but this was down to their ânatureâ and âurges of the bodyâ rather than the stigma of sin.122
It is worth noting that compared to the abovementioned very abstract issues, Schlichting relatively rarely touched upon matters of sacramentology, which concerned the practical aspects of liturgy. Nor did he deem it necessary to speak at length about the furnishings of churches. Whenever he did broach these subjects, he remained within the framework of Reformed orthodoxy delineated by the writings of Theodore Beza, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin.
Schlichtingâs interpretation of the Eucharist was very close to Reformed orthodoxy: he saw it as a sign or symbol (memoriale signum)123 and as an instrument of divine mercy.124 The theologian denied the real presence of Christâs body (his nondivine nature) in the sacrament. He was explicitly against both the transubstantiation professed by Catholics and the Lutheran consubstantiation.125 To him, the words of institution (the famous âhoc est corpus meumâ) were a metaphor.126 The ubiquitarian conceptâthat the real body of Christ is omnipresent and, as such, also present in the Eucharistâseemed absurd to him.127 The Eucharistic feast was only meaningful in the spiritual sense; it was a âmementoâ and âsign.â128 Consequently, participating in the Eucharist was not obligatory, as the rite was nothing more than a memorial; whether the faithful was present or absent was of no consequence either for the condition of the church or the condition of the Christian.129
Schlichting emphasized the meaning of sacraments as âinstruments of mercy,â especially regarding the sacrament of baptism. He saw in it not just a sign but also a âmeansâ (medium) of absolving sins.130 The prerequisite for baptism was an awareness of the truths of faith, which required a certain degree of maturityâboth mental and spiritualâon the part of the baptized.131 As children were devoid of it, Schlichting criticized pedobaptism.132 Besides, baptism could jeopardize a childâs health, as it should occur not by aspersion (aspersio) but by immersion of the whole body (immersio).133 Nevertheless, in his disputations with Meisner and Grotius, Schlichting did not condemn infant baptism, believing this error could be tolerated in the Church.134
Schlichting was also rather tolerant toward the cult of saints and Mary. He regarded information about their lives and miracles on earth as credible if they came from a verified source. The relics of saints (bones, shawls, and even shadows) should be treated with respect. They could work miraclesâby the same token as God made the donkey talk.135 However, nothing is known about the saintsâ sojourn in heaven or their intermediation.136 This is why the veneration of saints and their relics ought to involve placing them in a safe location rather than any superstitious practice.137 The Catholic differentiation between dulia and latriaâdefended, among others, by Cichowskiâwas a meaningless play on words.138
Schlichting was more radical when it came to images. God forbade the creation of any likenesses, âsimulachra seu sculptilia, sed etiam omnem assimilationem,â139 for he is beyond cognition through human senses and all representations encourage false worship.140 At the same time, however, Schlichting saw secular art as fully admissible, as it served to sustain memory and inspired awe for the artistsâ dexterity and talent. Further, he emphasized that Solomon had rightly placed images in the temple.141 In other words, the ban on images concerned worship rather than the creation of any representation, whereas images and sculpturesâas memoriaâwere not wrong in themselves; they could only be made wrong use of or ascribed with wrong meanings.142
To conclude this reconstruction of Schlichtingâs beliefs, one ought to elaborate on the most controversial matters, such as his attitude to office (of the church and state), discipline, secular authority, and the individual. This is a very complex problem, as it touches upon three separate issues: the definition of office and the resulting theoretical prerogatives; the practical scope of authority, which results from a confrontation between theory and practice; and the position of individual Christians.
According to Schlichting, the church was a congregation of the faithful headed by Christ, where everyone was equal. Ecclesia was a divine rather than an earthly community, so it should not be governed by earthly laws.143 Of course, even this community had its own offices, but their creation did not lead to the emergence of a hierarchy and a relationship of absolute subordination. Superiors or provosts remained mere officials, not masters.144 Ministers of the Word should preach peace, not war, as they were not appointed to govern but to care about matters of religion. Schlichting sometimes referred to them as the âclergyâ but underlined that he only used this word in a technical sense because no division into the lay and clergy existed within the church.145 The faithful had the right to disobey the hierarchs if the latter breached the adopted norms.146 Novelties introduced by the Roman Church, which violated âthe spiritual freedom and dignity of faith,â should have been removed a long time ago.147
Many of Schlichtingâs polemics defend the âdignity of faithâ and toleration. Rejecting the need for discipline in the church, he believed that what should be pursued instead was the discovery of true teachings and general peace, based on harmony, toleration, and freedom of conscience.148 Matters of toleration and freedom of conscience did not concern the church itself but were above all prerogatives of secular authorities.
In his defense of Sociniâs beliefs on secular power, Schlichting noted that they were no different from the beliefs of Protestant orthodoxy. Sociniâand Schlichting after himâleft all prerogatives that God had granted to the magistrates. Public authority was established to protect public peace and the safety of innocents.149 Therefore, the scope of its prerogatives was dictated and limited by the functions it served. According to the Gospel, it should act proportionately to the deeds of those it judged and be lenientâfor instance, it should not inflict capital punishment for theft.150 The sword granted to the magistrates by God should be stored away âin the sheath of charity.â151
These words, however, did not mean that Schlichting absolutely condemned war, the death penalty, and all forms of taking human life, although his attitude to these practices was definitely complex and ambivalent. Like Hugo Grotius, the Socinian theologian granted secular authorities the right to engage in wars against the public enemy but prohibited private wars.152 He allowed defensive wars153 but was realistic enough to emphasize that a war waged in the interests of the community, without abuse, hatred, or plundering, was just a theory âand we do not live in the world of Platonic ideas.â154
Like Socini, Schlichting criticized capital punishment if it was derived from the concept of âanimae pro anima adem[p]tioââthat is, the rule of repayment or vengeance (vindicta), which referred to the Old Testament rule of âan eye for an eyeâ and was rejected by the Polish Brethren.155 Yet the theologian did not absolutely condemn killing, carefully choosing his words on violence, war, and the individualâs right to defend himself. Refuting the allegations that Socini deprived the magistracy of its right to wage war and administer justice, Schlichting underlined that Sociniâs polemical deliberations merely concerned the duties of a Christian and the individualâs right of self-defense. The above reservations shifted the debate to the field of individual ethics and contrasted ethics with the rules of public life.156
The theoretical acceptance of the state, the justice system, and war led to the question of the individualâs attitude to these institutions. Schlichting underlined that whereas God wanted the faithful to practice moderation and understanding, Christians had the right to appeal decisions passed by secular authorities with a clear conscience, both before and after the injustice was suffered. However, they could not demand vengeance from the magistrates or seek it independently.157 Killing was also forbidden, as murder was always evil from the standpoint of Christian ethics and was only admissible in self-defense.158
Schlichting elaborated at length on the question of taking human life, on the basis of punishments inflicted by secular authorities, and the institution of war. In doing so, he disposed of both the biblical (Old and New Testament) argumentation and the justification of this act through natural law.
An analysis of biblical sources led Schlichting to reject arguments in favor of the death penalty and admissible killing derived from the Old Testament. The theologian believed that these barbaric times could not serve as an example for Christians.159 Nor did he see sufficient justification in the oft-quoted New Testament scene of St. Peter reaching for his sword to defend Jesus. In Schlichtingâs opinion, although Peterâs action was by all means just, it ought to be correctly interpreted. Peter did not act in self-defense but in defense of his loved ones; the magistrates, by arresting Christ, acted unjustly and unlawfully, thus turning into a tyrannical authority.160
This invocation of the defense of the weakest (family, friends, and homeland) and opposition to tyrannical power, as well as ânecessaria vitae defensio,â was a clear reference to Ciceroâs writings and the neo-Stoic understanding of natural law. However, it provoked questions about the limits of this defense of necessity.161 In this situation, Meisner upheld the rule of âvim vi repellere licet,â regarding it as derived from the natural law, and as such not in violation (perhaps even compliant with) divine instructions, because natural law was created by God. Schlichting, however, rejected this line of reasoning too, claiming that God could amend his own laws and that the dictates of piety were more important than the instigation of nature.162 Ultimately, it was possible to act in self-defense without resorting to killing, and a Christian should attach greater weight to his salvation than to his life.
Having acknowledged the raison dâêtre of secular magistrates and the Christian right of using them, another matter that required resolving was that of taking office by Christians, paying taxes, and the possibility of opposing authorities. In 1636, instead of offering an answer, Schlichting formulated a rhetorical question: Even if God gave magistrates the right to kill, does it befit a Christian to turn to a magistrate or take offices?163 Thereby, he suggested that when faced with a conflict between the dictates of faith and law, a Christian should withdraw from political life. According to Schlichting, a true Christian prefers to die in suffering than at warâas a martyr, not a soldier.164
Nonetheless, Christians should pay taxes, even if they were used to wage war: Christ also knew what use of money was made by emperors.165 This is where Schlichting saw a difference between Manichaeans, who rejected secular authority as evil, and Socinians, who accepted it butââquantum possuntâârefrained from wars and bloodshed.166 Note here the intentional modality of these prohibitions: instead of formulating absolute imperatives, Schlichting always uses terms such as velle, nolle, malle, quantum possere, or quam maxime.
In his homeland, Christian freedoms were safeguarded by rights and liberties. Incidentally, it was the Antitrinitarian thinkersâ understanding of freedom that researchers deemed particularly innovative.167 In his writings on the right to religious freedom, Schlichting often invoked the privileges enjoyed by the noble estate and the provisions of the Warsaw Confederation.168 He probably understood these laws as not just legal acts but also the unwritten rules that were cemented by the tradition that created the political culture of the nobles. What led to violating these laws and traditions was the import of exotic customs (Schlichting often pointed to the Spanish Inquisition).169 In 1654, Schlichting openly accused the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth of religious intolerance.170 Likewise, he was in no doubt that other Protestant confessions would soon share the fate of the persecuted Polish Brethren.171
Invoking the privileges and rights of the Commonwealth was the foundation of a concept of freedom that could be referred to as freedom of the estate. In this view, freedom was not a subjective right to which the individual was entitled irrespective of his birth and social standing, but it was associated with belonging to a specific social estateâalthough not necessarily the nobility. Schlichtingâs reference to the Warsaw Confederation also fits in with this concept.
Irrespective of this argumentation, Schlichting also pursued a different line of reasoning, in which freedom of confession was an inviolable axiom. He stressed in his disputations with Meisner that authorities should refrain from persecuting heresies, as confession was a matter of faith, which rendered physical coercion ineffective.172 The theologian developed this argumentation in his apologies from the 1650s. There, he painted a picture of mutual enmity between various confessions, asking whether Socinians would also have the right to exclude Catholics, were they to prove the stronger confession.173 This question undermined the principle of the Peace of Augsburg known as cuius regio, euis religio, which gained extreme popularity in the seventeenth century as a way of securing peace between conflicting confessions. Schlichting proposed replacing it with a separation of church and state, as the state encompassed âpeople of various origins and religions, even idolaters, pagans, heretics, and apostates.â174 Secular authorities enjoyed the status of protector of the church but only against those that attacked it with the sword, not those who used their words and reason.175 Faced with diverging opinions, the magistrate should refrain from action: âThe office acts justly in such disputes when it refrains from action so as not to violate anyoneâs conscience.â176 This is why, even if Schlichtingâs deliberations featured the figure of Constantine, the theologian explained:
I quoted the example of Constantine the Great not to have His Grace settle our controversies, saying who was right and who was not; but for His Grace to want to promote peace and harmony between people of different understandings, while leaving everyone to their opinion.177
In Schlichtingâs reasoning, freedom of conscience was consolidated not only in the autonomy of the church as an institution but also in the concepts of epistemic relativism and autonomy of the individual. By the same token as Schlichtingâs beliefs seemed blasphemous to Cichowski, Cichowskiâs views seemed wrong to Schlichting.178 That was why heresies had never been and should never be prosecuted by law but rather analyzed in a rational dispute.179 The right to freely decide about oneâs confession embodied the freedom of conscience to which all Christians were entitled.180
For what is the freedom of conscience, which is only subordinated to God, other than to think what you want in matters of religion and freely preach, and do as you think, provided that you harm no one?181
In other words, this individual freedom of conscience brought with it the individualâs right to freedom of thought and expression. And these could only be safeguarded by the separation of church and state.
4 âI Borrowed It from That Great Erasmus [â¦], You, Old And Expert Theologians, Could Have Known Thatâ (Schlichting)
Most of the presented beliefs were not conceived by Schlichting but represented a follow-up to the concepts contained in the writings of Fausto Socini. This is hardly surprising, as many of his polemics were apologetic in nature: they were written to protect the Polish Brethren, headed by Schlichting and Sociniâs ideas. The addressees of his forewords and dedications (members of the Bohemian Brethren, such as RafaÅ LeszczyÅski, BogusÅaw LeszczyÅski, and Jan Jerzy Schlichting, as well as Protestant noblemen) indicate that these writings were also directed to the adherents of other confessions. Consequently, when the Socinian theologian invoked authorities and documented his deliberations, he most often referred to Church Fathers and contemporary theologians of other confessions rather than to Antitrinitarians.
Among the Church Fathers, Schlichting liked to cite the authority of Tertullian182 as well as Irenaeus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Origen.183 Among contemporary authors, he favored Erasmus of Rotterdam and Sebastian Castellio.184 Erasmus was particularly respected by Schlichting: âHe was a great and wise man, with few equals or people of his kind.â185 This reference to Erasmus served an obvious identifying purpose: Schlichting positioned himself within the humanist tradition. At the same time, it also carried anticlerical overtonesâthe theologian posed as a layperson, warning his readers about the threat posed by clergymen.
Of course, this does not mean that Schlichting was an amateur when it came to the theological debates of his time. In all disputations, he most often cited writings by John Calvin and Theodore Beza, which he seemed to know even better than his Reformed adversaries.186 He very rarely invoked the authority of Luther and his work, although he did point out to Meisner that the latterâs theses differed from Lutherâs beliefs.187 What merits attention here is certain ambivalence in his relationship with the fathers of the Reformation. On the one hand, Schlichting noticed that Calvinâs voice was not always respected among Reformed Protestants.188 On the other hand, he criticized Clementinus for relying on authorities too often, when in essence he did not know the Bible. Schlichting accused theologians of the Protestant orthodoxy that they âpractice Calvin, Beza, and the so-called Church Fathers more, and are more expert when it comes to them than the Bible itself.â189 In other words, Protestant orthodoxy created a new kind of scholasticism, whichâlike its Catholic counterpartâlaid the foundations for intolerant attitudes and persecutions of heretics, as exemplified by events in the Netherlands and the trial of Miguel Servet.190 The Lutheran orthodoxy also created martyrs, having imprisoned and banished Joachim Stegmann, Jan Vogel (Joannes Vogelius), and Joachim Peuschel (Peuschelius).191 If it was up to Protestant clergymen, Antitrinitarians would not be tolerated even in the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth.192
Interestingly, Schlichting occasionally invoked Stanislaus Hosius, Robert Bellarmine, and even Piotr Skarga.193 Undoubtedly, Hosius had the most interesting role here, as he was cited as defending the right of the Polish Brethren to reside in the Commonwealth.194 Schlichting quoted the famous words the cardinal was meant to say according to his first biographer StanisÅaw Reszka (1544â1600): âBellum enim haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae.â195
5 âYou Donât Even Remember What You Wrote in Antapologiaâ (MikoÅaj Cichowski)
Any reconstruction of Schlichtingâs beliefs would be incomplete without considering the evolution of his ideas. Owing to the nature of his writings and their state of preservation, it is hard to unequivocally answer this question. However, the beliefs contained in his polemical writings and presented above may be compared to what he wrote in Confessio fidei. The relatively small size of the Confessio, which spanned 26 pages (two editions from 1651 were 104 and 126 pages long), particularly compared with Schlichtingâs polemics, which occupied thousands of pages, should not be used as an argument against such a comparison. Schlichtingâs creed was the most important doctrinal document of the Polish Brethren since the Racovian Catechism.196 Its publication in 1642 was the crowning achievement of the development of Schlichtingâs theological reflection and alsoâas I have tried to prove belowâa radical turn therein. Having taken note of these changes, Cichowski accused Schlichting of forgetting what he had written earlier.197 In an apology for his creed, Schlichting defended himself by claiming that the changes only involved passing over certain topicsâdeliberately omitting matters that were beyond human understanding from an interpretation of the truths of faith.198 However, an analysis of the creed suggests that these excuses were only partially true.
Schlichting wrote his Confessio as a commentary on the Apostlesâ Creed. The theologian preceded his work with a brief introduction, where he approved the Nicene Creed (Symbolum Nicaenum) and expressed his reservations about the third part of the Creed devoted to the Holy Spirit.199 In his commentary on the article on the Holy Spirit (article 19), he referred to it as the âInstructor, Teacher and Witnessâ (in the 1642 edition: âDoctorem et Magistrum, et Testemâ; in the 1651 edition: âcaelestem Authorem, et Magistrum, et Ducem, et Testemâ), who was sent by Christ following his ascension.200 One may guess that these carefully worded, ambiguous terms could serve as an attempt at depriving the Spirit of the attributes of a person.201 Schlichting also diplomatically passed over the issue of the Trinity.
The Socinian was similarly vague and ambiguous about Christological matters. Although Schlichting did raise well-known issues to prove that Christâas the begotten son of God (article 5)âenjoyed an exceptional status among the divine creatures,202 he clearly emphasized the preexistence of Christ, who existed not just before his incarnation but also before the creation of the world.203 Schlichtingâs interpretation of Christâs death and sacrifice (article 11) also showed a radical change.204 According to George H. Williams, the theologian referred to the theory of both Anselm and Abelard as well as Socini and Calvin.205 Christâs death did not just satisfy Godâs anger but also served as an example for the living and a sacrifice, thanks to which Christians were given justice. At least two of these concepts (satisfaction and sacrifice) had previously been absolutely rejected by Schlichting.
There were also other matters for which the theologian previously fiercely argued in his disputations but here decided to either pass over or express in ambiguous terms. For instance, the doctrine of predestination, although it did not rule out the human will contributing to the work of salvation, was formulated in very general terms, whereas original sin was not even mentioned.
This theological openness of the confession is confirmed by the formulation of ecclesiological and sacramental issues. Schlichting defined the âHoly Catholic Churchâ (Sancta Ecclesia Catholica) as broadly as possible, as a congregation that recognizes the creed.206 Apart from preaching the word of God and penance, what he found constitutive was the separation of baptism and the Eucharist. The passage devoted to the former sacrament merely suggests that it refers to the baptism of adults, yet it does not unequivocally state that it does.207 Communion was to be given under both kinds, yet only the phrase about the âmementoâ of Christâs death (Memoriae mortis Christi) brings to mind the symbolic nature of the Eucharistic feast (article 21).208
Confessio was an extremely conciliatory work, very close to Calvinâs doctrine and revealing a high level of familiarity with Reformed theology. This rapprochement with Reformed orthodoxy is visible above all in Schlichting refraining from speaking out on matters concerning justification: his acceptance of the previously rejected concept of iustitia imputativa and interpretation of the doctrine of satisfaction. At the same time, Schlichting tried to pass over controversial subjects such as predestination and the form of baptism. He also omitted debatable aspects of Christology, soteriology, and sacramentology as well as anthropology or formulated them in very general terms, possibly wanting to remain faithful to the teachings of Socini and Crell. This was a radical change compared to his beliefs presented above.
Nonetheless, as has been noted here, the publication of Schlichtingâs creed did not end the evolution of his beliefs. In the last period of his activity, following his sentence (1647), the theologian partially returned to his previous position and gave up his conciliatory tone, although he took care to maintain some common ground. The aforementioned examples could be extended to include the changes introduced by Schlichting to the new edition of the Racovian Catechism, where he introduced significant modifications to key Christological concepts. Contrary to the original version, Schlichting reiterated his conviction about the divine nature of Christ, whoâto himâwas both a man, the son of David, and God. He also developed the munus triplex Christi concept, included in the original wording of the Catechism. However, contrary to the first edition, he added that Christ was also a priest (Sacerdos) on earth before his ascension. Schlichtingâs interpretation of the meaning of Christâs sacrifice was also extended and modified. Although the Socinian explicitly adopted a condemnation of the Anselmian concept of satisfaction, he implicitly referred to it in his deliberations on redemption.
Although Schlichting refrained from employing a number of conciliatory phrases found in Confessio in his revision of Catechesis, he continued his attempts at coming theologically closer to the Reformed confession. This tendency comes through not only in the softening of his Christological doctrine but also in the more diplomatic formulation of his condemnation of pedobaptism. According to Schlichting, this was an error that ought to be tolerated.209
It seems that Schlichtingâs political beliefs also experienced a certain evolution. Even in his early polemical texts, Schlichting underlined that the Christian duties were not at odds with services to the state, and the subject of patriotism as a Christian virtue was an oft-recurring one in his late debates.210 In his disputations with Wolzogen, where he defended the institution of ownership and the state, he even described defending oneâs homeland as a Christian duty.211 In the defence of his creed, he stated: âWe are not a foreign people, but the blood of the Commonwealth; born of the same ancestors.â212 Even in the apologia directed to the States of Holland and West Friesland, where he complained about Protestants being limited in their liberties, deprived of their churches, and oppressed, he did not hesitate to call the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth âpatria nostra.â213
6 Conclusion: âOne of the Best Writers [of the Socinians]â
Jonas Schlichting was one of the most eminent theologians of the Polish Brethren, whose beliefs enjoyed a very strong reception. His works, usually written in Latin, were already translated into a number of European languages in the seventeenth century.214 Confessio fidei was translated into Polish (1646), French (1646), Dutch (1652), and German (1653). Thanks to their publication as part of the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, Schlichtingâs exegetic works were widely received in the Netherlands and England. They were used, among others, by Pierre Bayle215 and John Locke216 and most likely also by Baruch Spinoza, John Milton,217 Thomas Hobbes, Anthony Asham,218 and Isaac Newton.219
However, to grasp the evolution of his beliefs and their significance at the time of their creation, one ought to go beyond the exegetic works in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum and explore his disputations. This enables one to notice the topical impact of his theological reflectionâclose to Socini, Wolzogen, and Przypkowskiâas well as its evolution. The above deliberations were meant to demonstrate how the functions of his confessional polemics evolved over time and to prove that the evolution of Schlichtingâs beliefs was aimed at entering into dialogue with other Protestant confessions, particularly the Reformed. This rapprochement involved accepting the divine nature of Christ, underlining the role of his sacrifice in the work of justification, and passing over matters of predestination. Further, through his acceptance of secular law, the state, and defensive wars, the Socinian became politically acceptable to most of society. His proposals to solve the political crisis resulting from the coexistence of various confessionsâeach of which claimed to be solely entitled to interpret reality and define the truthâbelonged to the broad irenic movement that flourished in the aftermath of the catastrophic Thirty Yearsâ War.
This movement was also represented by Comenius, in whose Panegyricus we read that âeverything should be free: body, mind, conscience, so that no one may shackle anyone else because of this, that, or any other reason.â220 This demand went beyond the hopes of abiding by the Warsaw Confederation and the rights to which individuals were entitled, defined above as the concept of freedom of the estate. The demand for the freedom of âbody, mind, [and] conscienceâ was almost literally borrowed from Apologia published by Schlichting in 1654, and it corresponded to the new concept of individual freedom formulated by Schlichting, to which all humans were entitled, irrespective of their social standing or faith. These similarities may indicate that the allegations of Socinian sympathies put forward against Comenius were not entirely unfounded. Without a doubt, though, both theologians were pioneers of new ideas and ways of thinking.
Schlichting deserves to be listed among the forerunners of the Enlightenment, although this opinion requires clarification. On the one hand, this is backed by the key elements of his worldview: defense of individual freedom and independence, praise of toleration, separation of church and state, and a rather specific type of âreligious rationalism.â Indeed, all these ideas were favorably received in the seventeenth century in the circles of thinkers of the siècle des Lumières, particularly among the representatives of the âradical Enlightenment,â who were accused of ânaturalism,â âmaterialism,â and even âatheism.â221 What ought to be clarified here is that Schlichtingâs enlightened worldview was rooted in his theological beliefs. Individual freedom and rationalism were strictly associated with negating the burden of original sin and the doctrine of justification and predestination. The latter resulted from his views on Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity.
On the other hand, underlining the role of piety and transformation of oneâs life (fides viva, caritas, praxis pietatis) brought Schlichting closer to the thinkers and practitioners of the Second Reformation, who demanded a âreformatio vitaeâ to follow the First Reformation.222 Among these religious revival movements of the latter half of the seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuriesâa reaction to the ossification of orthodox trends of the Reformationâthe most important was Pietism, but similar phenomena could also be observed in the Catholic Church (Jansenism) and the Jewish religion (Hasidism).223 A careful reading of works by Socinian thinkers suggests that this catalog should be extended to include them too. The contradiction between the two abovementioned interpretations, according to which Schlichting was either one of the forerunners of the Enlightenment or a member of âsupraconfessional Pietism,â is a superficial one; both above hypotheses form part of a broader reflection on the religious roots of the Enlightenment in Europe.224
In light of the most recent findings, the claim that the expulsion of the Polish Brethren from the Commonwealth marked the end of the toleration era ought to be revised. One modification of this general thesis was offered by Kriegseisen, who argued that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, âin the practice of social life, confessional toleration was nothing more than the freedom from persecution on the grounds of oneâs confession or religionâ225 and that changes brought about by the seventeenth century fit in with the Europe-wide process of confessionalization, belatedly initiated in the Commonwealth by the Catholic Church. This new interpretation enables the contextualization of the fate of the Polish Brethren within the broader European process of confessionalization. The sixteenth-century freedom of confessions in the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth was founded on delayed confession-building processes. On the other hand, the clash between orthodoxy and heterodoxy was omnipresent in modern Europe and resulted from the process of forming the confessional identity of religious groups and developing a model of coexistence within a single state organism. These processes followed a different dynamics and course for individual confessions. In confessional clashes, heterodoxy determined and modified its position while defining its own orthodoxy and fighting for its political recognition.226 In other words, the clash between the Polish Brethren and other confessions was a typical confrontation of the confessionalization era, and the Socinians experienced the same evolution as other churches.227
Acknowledgements
A previous version of this article was published in Polish in Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 57 (2013): 30â75. The author gratefully acknowledges permission for translation and publication of the revised text. Translated by Aleksandra SzkudÅapska.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Aentekeningh en verklaringh over de ses voornaemste Schriftuurplaetsen, diemen placht te greuycken tot bewijs van de Drie-eenigheydt, en de eeuweige Godtheydt Christi. [S.l.] 1649.
Bayle, Pierre. Dictionnaire historique et critique. Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1969.
Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum. Irenopoli, 1659.
Cichowski, MikoÅaj. Manes Slichtingiani seu trutina vindiciarum manium Confessionis Socinianae: Varsaviae exustae: editarum a D. Iona Slichting. Producta in publicum a Patre Nicolao Cichovio. Typis Viduæ & Heredum Andreæ Petricovii, 1659.
Cichowski, MikoÅaj. Wizerunek nieprawdy Aryanskiey Postrzeżoney w rozbieraniu WykÅadu na niektóre mieysca Pisma S. o Bostwie Syna Bożego, y o Troycy PrzenaswiÄtrzey. Kraków: W. PiÄ tkowski, 1650.
Clementinus, Daniel. Antapologia, to iest Odpowiedź X. Daniela Clemenitnusa, na Odpowiedź p. Jonasza Szlichtinka. Baranów, 1630.
Clementinus, Daniel. Antilogiae et absurda to jest sprzeciwieÅstwa i niesÅusznoÅci wypÅywajÄ ce z opiniej Socinitów ponurzonych. Cracoviae, 1623.
Comenius, Johannes Amos. Antisozinianische Schriften: Auge des Glaubensânatürliche Theologie. Edited by Erwin Schadel. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 2008.
Comenius, Johannes Amos. Opera omnia, vol. 13. Edited by Oldrich ÅÃha. Prague: Academia, 1974.
Comenius, Johannes Amos. Opera omnia, vol. 26/1: Epistulae Pars I, 1628â1638. Edited by Martin Steiner et al. Prague: Academia, 2018.
Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae & combustae manium a Rev. D. Nicolao Cichovio lacessitorum sui vindices. 1652.
Hosius, Stanislaus. Stanislai Hosii S. R. E. Cardinalis Episcopi Varmiensis [â¦] Epistolae. Edited by Franciscus Hipler and Vincentius Zakrzewski. Cracoviae: Academiae Litterarum Cracoviensis, 1879.
Kaniewska, Irena, ed. Diariusz sejmu lubelskiego 1566 roku. WrocÅaw: Ossolineum, 1980.
Lisa, Martina, ed. Die Chronik des Václav Nosidlo von Geblice. Aufzeichnungen aus der böhmischen Exulantengemeinde in Pirna zur Zeit des DreiÃigjährigen Krieges. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2014.
Lubieniecki, StanisÅaw. âExemplum Epistolae Stanislai Lubieniecii de Lubienietz.â In Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. 3/1. Irenopoli, 1656.
Meisner, Balthasar. Brevis consideratio theologiae Photinianae. Wittenberg: Haeredes Johannis Richteri, 1619.
Panegyricus Carolo Gustavo, magno Suecorum Vandalorumq[ue] Regi, incruento Sarmatiae Victori et quaqua uenit liberatori pio, felici, Augusto. [S.l.] 1655.
Schlichting, Jonas. Confessio fidei Christianae edita nomine Ecclesiarum Polonicarum quae unum Deum et Filium eius unigenitum Jesum Christum cum Spiritu Sancto profitentur. LusÅawice, 1642.
Schlichting, Jonas. De ss. Trinitate, de moralibus N.&V. Testamenti praeceptis, itemque de Sacris, Evcharistiae, & Baptismi ritibus. Adversus Balthasarem Meisnerum, Sacrae Theol. Doctorem, et in Acad. Vittebergensi, Professorem Publicum. Raków: S. Sternacki/J. Lange, 1637.
Schlichting, Jonas. De uno omnium Deo Patre illo omnipotente et Filio ejus uno omnium Domino Christo ab ipso facto Fides antiqua contra novatores ad J. A. Comenium. Irenopoli, 1685.
Schlichting, Jonas. Na AntapologiÄ ks. Daniela Clementiusa o potwarzach odpowiedź. Raków: S. Sternacki, 1631.
Schlichting, Jonas. Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem quam habuit super initium Evangel. Ioannis, Lesnae Anno 1639. Racoviae: S. Sternacki, 1644.
Schlichting, Jonas. Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace. Irenopoli, 1685.
Schlichting, Jonas. Odpowiedź na script X. Daniela Clementinusa, Nazwany; Antilogiae et absurda, to jest, SprzeciwieÅstwa, y niesÅusznoÅci wypÅywajÄ ce z opiniy Socinitów Ponurzonych uczyniona przez Jonasza Szlichtinga z Bukowca. Raków: S. Sternacki, 1625.
Schlichting, Jonas. Quaestio Num ad regnum Dei possidendum necesse sit in nullo peccato Evangelicae doctrinae adverso manere? contra Balthasarem Meisnerum. Raków: P. Sternacki, 1635.
Schlichting, Jonas. Quæstiones duæ: vna Num in evangelicorum religione dogmata habeantur, quae vix ullo modo permittant, ut qui eam amplectatur, nullo in peccato perseveret? Altera Num in eadem religione quaedam concedantur Christi legibus inconcessa? contra Balthasarem Meisnerum S. Theologiae Doctorem et in Academia Witenbergensi Profess. publicum a Jona Schlichtingio a Bukowiec disputatae. Raków: P. Sternacki, 1636.
Schlichting, Jonas. Apologia pro veritate accusata. Ad Illustrissimos et potentissimos Hollandiae et West-Frisiae ordines. Conscripta ab Equite Polono. [S.l.] 1654.
Schlichting, Jonas. Reverendi viri D. Nicolai Cichovii. Societatis quae Iesu nomen praefert. Centuria argumentorum caesa. [S.l.] 1652.
Simplicius, Joannes. Notae in doctissimi cujusdam viri commentationem ad 2 caput posterioris ad Thessalonicenses Epistolae. [S.l.] 1643.
SipayÅÅo, Maria, ed. Akta Synodów Różnowierczych w Polsce, vol. 3. Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1983.
Vechner, Georg. Der Anfang des Evangelii Iohannis, von dem Worte Das das Gott War und Fleisch worden ist: Gründlich und deutlich zu Christlicher Erbawung erklähret Und durch eine Weinacht-Predigt Bey der Gemeine Gottes zu Lissa in Polenabgehandelt. [S.l.] 1639.
WÄgierski, Andrzej. Libri quattuor Slavoniae reformatae. Edited by Janusz Tazbir. Varsoviae: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973.
Williams, Georg H., ed. The Polish Brethren. Documentation of the History and Thought of Unitarianism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the Diaspora 1601â1685. Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1980.
Wolzogen, Ludwig. Responsio ad Jonae Slichtingii a Bucowietz Annotationes in Annotationes de Bello, Magistratu et Privata Defensione. In Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. 9, 91â132. Irenopoli, 1656.
Secondary Sources
BeÄkowa, Marta. âDie Brüderunität und der Antitrinitarismus.â In Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, edited by Lech Szczucki, 215â228. Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci, 2005.
BeÄkowa, Marta. âZur Problematik der Comeniusâ Beziehungen zum Sozinanismus.â In Socinianism and its Role in the Culture, editedy by Lech Szczucki, 169â182. Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1983.
Beer, Jürgen. âAdvice to Princes in the Work of J.A. Comenius and Erasmus of Rotterdam.â In Comenius und der Weltfriede, edited by Werner Korthaase, 108â117. Berlin: Deutsche ComeniusâGesellschaft, 2005.
Bietenholz, Peter. âFausto Socini and the New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus.â In Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, edited by Lech Szczucki, 11â28. Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci, 2005.
Bietenholz, Peter. Encounters with a Radical Erasmus: Erasmusâ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008.
Bodniak, StanisÅaw. âSprawa wygnania arjan w r. 1566.â Reformacja w Polsce 5 (1928): 52â59.
Brock, Peter. âDilemmas of a Socinian Pacifist in Seventeenth Century Poland.â Church History 63 (1994): 190â200.
Chmaj, Ludwik, ed. Studia nad arianizmem. Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959.
Chmaj, Ludwik. Bracia Polscy. Ludzie, idee, wpÅywy. Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1957.
Chmaj, Ludwik. Faust Socyn. Warszawa: KsiÄ Å¼ka i Wiedza, 1963.
sChmaj, Ludwik. Samuel Przypkowski. Kraków: PAU, 1927.
ChoiÅska-Mika, Jolanta. MiÄdzy spoÅeczeÅstwem szlacheckim a wÅadzÄ : problem komunikacji spoÅecznoÅci lokalneâwÅadza w epoce Jana Kazimierza. Warszawa: Neriton, 2002.
Danysz, Antoni. âJan Amos KomeÅski: przyczynki do jego dziaÅalnoÅci w Polsce.â Roczniki Towarzystwa PrzyjacióŠNauk PoznaÅskiego 25 (1899): 109â202.
Daugirdas, KÄstutis. Die Anfänge des Sozinianismus: Genese und Eindringen des historisch-ethischen Religionsmodells in den universitären Diskurs der Evangelischen in Europa. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2016.
Dworzaczek, WÅodzimierz. Schlichtyngowie w Polsce. Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff, 1938.
Dworzaczkowa, Jolanta. Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce w XVI i XVII wieku. Warszawa: Semper, 1997.
Dworzaczkowa, Jolanta. Reformacja i Kontrreformacja w Wielkopolsce. PoznaÅ: Wydawnictwo PoznanÌskie, 1995.
DziÄgielewski, Jan. âOd staropolskiego âmiÅoÅnika ojczyznyâ, do âsarmackiego patriotyâ.â In Patriotyzm Polaków. Studia z historii idei, edited by Jacek Kloczkowski, 21â31. Kraków: OÅrodek MyÅli Politycznej, 2007.
DziÄgielewski, Jan. O ustroju, decydentach i dysydentach. Studia i szkice z dziejów Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej. Kraków: Instytut Nauk Historycznych Uniwersytetu KardynaÅa Stefana WyszyÅskiego, 2011.
Friedeburg, Robert von. âIn Defense of Patria: Resisting Magistrates and the Duties of Patriots in the Empire from the 1530s to the 1640s.â Sixteenth Century Journal 32 (2001): 357â382.
Friedrich, Markus. Die Grenzen der Vernunft. Theologie, Philosophie und Konflikte am Beispiel des Helsmstedter Hoffmannstreits und seiner Wirkungen auf das Luthertum um 1600. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Garber, Klaus, ed. Handbuch des personalen Gelegenheitsschrifttums in europäischen Bibliotheken und Archiven. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2007.
Giertych, JÄdrzej. U zÌroÌdeÅ katastrofy dziejowej Polski: Jan Amos Komensky. London, 1964.
Grell, Ole Peter. Brethren in Christ. A Calvinist Network in Reformation Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Heering, Jan-Paul. âHugo Grotiusâ De veritate Religionis Christianae.â In Hugo Grotius, Theologian. Essays in Honour of G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, edited by Henk J.M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie, 41â52. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Heering, Jan-Paul. Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion. A study of his work De veritate Religionis Christianae (1640). Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Holt, Mack P. âInternational Calvinism.â In John Calvin in Context, edited by Ward Holder, 375â382. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Hotson, Howard. âOutsiders, Dissenters, and Competing Visions of Reform.â In The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, edited by Ulinka Rublack, 301â328. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Israel, Jonathan. A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
Israel, Jonathan. The Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650â1750. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Jolley, Nicholas. âLeibniz on Locke and Socinianism.â Journal of the History of Ideas 39 (1978): 233â250.
Jordt Jørgensen, Kai E. StanisÅaw Lubieniecki. Zum Weg des Unitarismus von Ost nach West im 17. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.
Jordt Jørgensen, Kai E. âLubieniecki in Kraków 1655.â In Studia nad arianizmem, edited by Ludwig Chmaj, 199â202. Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959.
Kaplan, Benjamin J. Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Kaplan, Benjamin J. Reformation and the Practice of Toleration: Dutch Religious History in the Early Modern Era. Leiden: Brill 2019.
Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia. AriaÅskie oficyny wydawnicze Rodeckiego i Starnackiego. WrocÅaw: Ossolineum, 1974.
Kingdom, Robert M. âInternational Calvinism.â In Handbook of European history 1400â1600, edited by Thomas Brady, Heiko Oberman, 229â247. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Knijff. Philip, Sibbe Jan Visser, ed. Bibliographia Sociniana. A Bibliographical Reference Tool for the Study of Dutch Socinianism and Antitrinitarism. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2004.
KoÅakowski, Leszek. Chrétiens sans Ãglise: la conscience religieuse et le lien confessionnel au XVII. Siècle. Paris: Gallimard, 1987.
Kolarzowski, Jerzy J. Idea praw jednostki w pismach braci polskich. U narodzin nowożytnej koncepcji praw czÅowieka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2009.
Koryl, Jakub. âHermeneutyka braci polskich: wprowadzenie.â In Antytrynitaryzm w pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej w kontekÅcie europejskim. ŹródÅaârozwójâoddziaÅywanie, edited by MichaÅ Choptiany and Piotr Wilczek, 219â261. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 2017.
Kot, StanisÅaw. Ideologia polityczna braci polskich zwanych arianami. Warszawa: Kasa im. Mianowskiego, 1932.
Kriegseisen, Wojciech. Between State and Church: Confessional Relations from Reformation to Enlightenment: PolandâLithuaniaâGermanyâNetherlands. Translated by Bartosz Wójcik and Alex Shannon. Frankfurt a.M: Peter Lang GmbH, 2016.
Kriegseisen, Wojciech. âToleration, or ChurchâState Relations? The Determinant in Negotiating Religions in the Modern Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.â Acta Poloniae Historica 107 (2013): 83â100.
Kriegseisen, Wojciech. Die Protestanten in Polen-Litauen (1696â1763): rechtliche Lage, Organisation und Beziehungen zwischen den evangelischen Glaubensgemeinschaften. Edited by Joachim Bahlcke and Klaus Ziemer. Translated Peter Oliver Loew and Rafael Sendek. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011.
Luszczynska, Magdalena. Politics of Polemics: Marcin Czechowic on the Jews. Berlin: De Gruyter 2018.
Marshall, John. John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit Press, 2006.
McDonald, Grantley. Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
McLachlan, Herbert John. Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Oxford Universit Press, 1951.
Metasch, Frank. Exulanten in Dresden: Einwanderung und Integration von Glaubensflüchtlingen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.-Verl., 2011.
Misiurek, Jerzy. Spory chrystologiczne w Polsce w drugiej poÅowie XVI wieku. Lublin: KUL, 1984.
Mortimer, Sarah. âHuman Liberty and Human Nature in the Works of Faustus Socinus and His Readers.â Journal of the History of Ideas 70 (2009): 191â211.
Mortimer, Sarah. Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit Press, 2010.
MÅcisz, MichaÅ. âAmos Komensky w walce z paÅstwem polskim.â Kurier Literacko-Naukowy (3 Febr. 1935): 6â8.
Mühlegger, Florian. âHugo Grotiusâ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sozinianismus.â In Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, edited by Lech Szczucki, 297â326. Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci, 2005.
Mühlegger, Florian. Hugo Grotius. Ein christlicher Humanist in politischer Verantwortung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.
Müller, Hans-Joachim. Irenik als Kommunikationsreform. Das Colloquium Charitativum von Thorn 1645. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Müller, Hans-Joachim. âThe Dimensions of Religious Toleration in the Eirenicism of Jan Amos Comenius (1642â1645).â Acta Comeniana 17 (2003): 99â116.
Mulsow, Martin and Jan Rohls eds., Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Murdock, Graeme. Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europeâs Reformed Churches, c. 1540â1620. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Ogonowski, Zbigniew. âDer Sozinianismus und das Problem der Toleranz.â In Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, edited by Lech Szczucki, 129â145. Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci, 2005.
Ogonowski, Zbigniew. âLa liberté de citoyen et la liberté religieuse dans la philosophie politique en Pologne au XVIIe siècle.â Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 39 (1995): 155â162.
Ogonowski, Zbigniew. Filozofia polityczna w Polsce XVII wieku i tradycje demokracji europejskiej. Warszawa: PAN IFiS, 1999.
Ogonowski, Zbigniew. Socynianizm: dzieje, poglÄ dy, oddziaÅywanie. Warszawa: Instytut Historii Nauki PAN, Oficyna Wydawnicza ASPRA, 2015.
Pawelec, Mariusz. BartÅomiej Bythner starszy (ok. 1559â1629). Warszawa: Semper, 2008.
Pettegree, Andrew. âThe Politics of Toleration in the Free Netherlands, 1572â1620.â In Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, edited by Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner, 182â198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Prestwich, Menna, ed. International Calvinism: 1541â1715. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
PtaszyÅski, Maciej. âSzlichtyng Jonasz.â In Polski SÅownik Biograficzny, vol. 48, edited by Andrzej Romanowski, 398â403. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Societas Vistulana, 2012â2013.
PtaszyÅski, Maciej. âToleranzedikt, Wahlkapitulationen oder Religionsfrieden? Der polnische Adel und die Warschauer Konföderation.â In Ritterschaft und Reformation, edited by Wolfgang Breul and Kurt Andermann, 255â269. Regensburg: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2019.
PtaszyÅski, Maciej. Reformacja w Polsce a dziedzictwo Erazma z Rotterdamu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2018.
RadoÅ, SÅawomir. Z dziejów polemiki antyariaÅskiej w Polsce XVIâXVII wieku. Kraków: Universitas, 1993.
Rogers, John. âMilton and the Heretical Priesthood of Christ.â In Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern England, edited by David Loewenstein and John Marshall, 203â220. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit Press 2006.
Rohls, Jan. âFausto Socini und Hugo Grotius über die Autorität der Schrift.â In Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, edited by Lech Szczucki, 327â347. Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci, 2005.
Rose, Jacqueline. âDissent and the State: Persecution and Toleration.â In The Oxford History of Dissenting Traditions: vol. 1: The Post-Reformation era, c.1559âc.1689, edited by John Coffey, 313â333. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Rott, Dariusz. âPolityka a literatura. âPanegyricus Carolo Gustavoâ Jana Amosa KomeÅskiego wobec kultury sarmackiej.â In Sarmackie theatrum: studia historycznoliterackie, edited by Renarda Ocieczek and Marzena WaliÅska, 72â89. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ÅlÄ skiego, 2001.
Salatowsky, Sascha. Die Philosophie der Sozinianer. Transformationen zwischen Renaissance-Aristotelismus und Frühaufklärung. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 2015.
Schmidt, Alexander. Vaterlandsliebe und Religionskonflikt. Politische Diskurse im Alten Reich (1555â1648). Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Schorn-Schütte, Luise. Gottes Wort und Menschenherrschaft: politisch-theologische Sprachen im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit. München: C.H. Beck, 2015.
Schubert, Anselm. âKommunikation und Konkurrenz. Gelehrtenrepublik und Konfession im 17. Jahrhundert.â In InterkonfessionalitätâTranskonfessionalitätâbinnenkonfessionelle Pluralität: neue Forschungen zur Konfessionalisierungsthese, edited by Kaspar von Greyerz et al., 105â131. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003.
Seidel, Robert. Späthumanismus in Schlesien: Caspar Dornau (1577â1631). Leben und Werk. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994.
Sher Tinsley, Barbara. Pierre Bayleâs Reformation. Conscience and Critism on the Eve of the Enlightenment. London: Associated Universit Press, 2001.
Snobelen Stephen D. ââGod of Gods, and Lord of Lordsâ: The Theology of Isaac Newtonâs General Scholium to the Principia.â Osiris 16 (2001): 169â208.
Snobelen, Stephen D. âSocinianism and Newtonianism: the case of William Whiston.â In Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, edited by Lech Szczucki, 373â414. Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci, 2005.
Sorkin, David. The Religious Enlightenment. Protestants, Jews and Catholics from London to Vienna. Princeton: Princeton Universit Press, 2008.
Sparn, Walter. âMeisner, Balthasar.â In Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 5, 1172â1174. Herzberg Traugott: Bautz, 1993.
Strom, Jonathan. âProblems and Promises of Pietism Research.â Church History 71 (2002): 536â554.
Szczotka, StanisÅaw. âSynody arjan polskich od zaÅożenia Rakowa do wygnania z kraju (1569â1662).â Reformacja w Polsce 7â8 (1936): 21â100.
Tazbir Janusz. âWalka z BraÄmi Polskimi w dobie kontrreformacji.â Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 1 (1956): 165â207.
Trevor-Roper, Hugh. The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century: Religion, the Reformation and Social Change. London: Macmillan, 1967.
Urbánek, Vladimir. âJ. A. Comeniusâ Anti-Machiavellianism.â Acta Comeniana 11 (1995): 61â70.
van Veen, Mirjam. âExiles and Calvinist Identity.â In Cultures of Calvinism in Early Modern Europe, edited by Crawford Gribben, Graeme Murdock, 157â170. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Vercruysse, Jeroom. âCrellius, Le Cène, Naigeon ou les chemins de la tolérance socinienne.â Tijdschrift voor de Studie van de Verlichting 1 (1973): 244â320.
Walsham, Alexandra. âCultures of Coexistence in Early Modern England: History, Literature, and Religious Toleration.â The Seventeenth Century 28 (2013): 115â137.
Walsham, Alexandra. Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England 1500â1700. Manchester: Manchester Universit Press, 2006.
Wasilewski, Tadeusz. âZdrada Janusza RadziwiÅÅa w 1655 r. i jej wyznaniowe motywy.â Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 18 (1973): 125â147.
Wiedenroth, Ulrich. Krypsis und Kenosis. Studien zu Thema und Genese der Tübinger Christologie im 17. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Williams, Georg H. âThe Place of The Confessio Fidei of Jonas Schlichting in the Life and Thought of the Minor Church.â In Socinianism and its Role in the Culture of XVI-th to XVIII-th centuries, edited by Lech Szczucki, 103â114. Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1983.
Zagorin, Perez. How the Idea of Religious Toleration came to the West. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Å»ukowski, Jacek. âKije strugane, czyli ikonoklazm braci polskich.â Quarta 20 (2011): 27â44.
Å»ukowski, Jacek. SÄ d nad Arianami w kieleckim PaÅacu Biskupów Krakowskich. Kielce: Muzeum Narodowe, 2018.
Panegyricus Carolo Gustavo, magno Suecorum Vandalorumq[ue] Regi, incruento Sarmatiae Victori et quaqua uenit liberatori pio, felici, Augusto, [s.l.], 1655; edited in Johannis Amos Comenii Opera omnia, vol. 13, ed. Oldrich ÅÃha (Prague: Academia, 1974), 67â94, here 73 (âRes hic tam male steterant, ut pejus non possent, foris domique. Foris erant barbari hostes bonis et vitae: domi simulati amici libertatibus inhiantes religiosis et politicis. Eoque res devenerat, ut consilio aere, viris et viribus exhausta cadaver rei publicae videri potuerit Poloniaâ). [All translations by Aleksandra SzkudÅapska unless clearly indicated otherwise].
Graeme Murdock, Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europeâs Reformed Churches, c. 1540â1620 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 123.
Menna Prestwich, ed., International Calvinism: 1541â1715 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); Robert M. Kingdom, âInternational Calvinism,â in Handbook of European history 1400â1600, ed. Thomas Brady, Heiko Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 229â47; Howard Hotson, âOutsiders, Dissenters, and Competing Visions of Reform,â in The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, ed. Ulinka Rublack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 301â28; Mack P. Holt, âInternational Calvinism,â in John Calvin in Context, ed. Ward Holder (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 375â82.
Ole Peter Grell, Brethren in Christ. A Calvinist Network in Reformation Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 127â77; Mirjam van Veen, âExiles and Calvinist Identity,â in Cultures of Calvinism in Early Modern Europe, ed. Crawford Gribben, Graeme Murdock (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 157â70.
See [a letter of] âBohemian and Moravian Ministers in exile to elders and superintendents of the Church in Lithuaniaâ (Leszno, September 24, 1629), in Johannis Amos Comenii opera omnia, vol. 26/1: Epistulae Pars I, 1628â1638, ed. Martin Steiner et al. (Prague: Academia, 2018), 33â7. About the Bohemian migration to Pirna and to Dresden see: Martina Lisa ed., Die Chronik des Václav Nosidlo von Geblice. Aufzeichnungen aus der böhmischen Exulantengemeinde in Pirna zur Zeit des DreiÃigjährigen Krieges (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2014); Frank Metasch, Exulanten in Dresden: Einwanderung und Integration von Glaubensflüchtlingen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.âVerl., 2011), 37â42, 189â222.
Johannis Amos Comenii Opera omnia, vol. 13, 75.
Maciej PtaszyÅski, âToleranzedikt, Wahlkapitulationen oder Religionsfrieden? Der polnische Adel und die Warschauer Konföderation,â in Ritterschaft und Reformation, ed. Wolfgang Breul and Kurt Andermann, (Regensburg: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2019), 255â69.
Johannis Amos Comenii Opera omnia, vol. 13, 84. About Panegiricus see: Vladimir Urbánek, âJ.A. Comeniusâ Anti-Machiavellianism,â Acta Comeniana 11 (1995): 61â70; Jolanta Dworzaczkowa, ââPanegyricus Carolo Gustavoâ i jego tÅo polityczne,â in ead., Reformacja i Kontrreformacja w Wielkopolsce (PoznaÅ: Wydawnictwo PoznanÌskie, 1995), 311â28; Dariusz Rott, âPolityka a literatura. âPanegyricus Carolo Gustavoâ Jana Amosa KomeÅskiego wobec kultury sarmackiej,â in Sarmackie theatrum: studia historycznoliterackie, ed. Renarda Ocieczek and Marzena WaliÅska (Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ÅlÄ skiego, 2001), 72â89; Hans-Joachim Müller, âThe Dimensions of Religious Toleration in the Eirenicism of Jan Amos Comenius (1642â1645),â Acta Comeniana 17 (2003): 99â116; Jürgen Beer, âAdvice to Princes in the Work of J.A. Comenius and Erasmus of Rotterdam,â in Comenius und der Weltfriede, ed. Werner Korthaase (Berlin: Deutsche Comenius-Gesellschaft, 2005), 108â17.
See JÄdrzej Giertych, U zÌroÌdeÅ katastrofy dziejowej Polski: Jan Amos Komensky (London, 1964); MichaÅ MÅcisz, âAmos Komensky w walce z paÅstwem polskim,â Kurier LiterackoâNaukowy (3 Febr. 1935): 6â8. The marginal monograph by JÄdrzej Giertych influenced some prominent historians like WÅadysÅaw CzapliÅski or Zbigniew Wójcik. Comp. Antoni Danysz, âJan Amos KomeÅski: przyczynki do jego dziaÅalnoÅci w Polsce,â Roczniki Towarzystwa PrzyjacióŠNauk PoznaÅskiego 25 (1899): 109â202, here 125â26.
Tadeusz Wasilewski, âZdrada Janusza RadziwiÅÅa w 1655 r. i jej wyznaniowe motywy,â Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 18 (1973): 125â47.
Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration came to the West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); Israel, Jonathan, A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).
Wojciech Kriegseisen, âToleration, or ChurchâState Relations? The Determinant in Negotiating Religions in the Modern PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth,â Acta Poloniae Historica 107 (2013): 83â100, 92 (quotation); id., Between State and Church: Confessional Relations from Reformation to Enlightenment: PolandâLithuaniaâGermanyâNetherlands (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang GmbH, 2016), 586.
Zbigniew Ogonowski, Socynianizm: dzieje, poglÄ dy, oddziaÅywanie (Warszawa: Instytut Historii Nauki PAN, Oficyna Wydawnicza ASPRA, 2015), 1â58.
StanisÅaw Bodniak, âSprawa wygnania arjan w r. 1566,â Reformacja w Polsce 5 (1928): 52â59; Janusz Tazbir, âWalka z BraÄmi Polskimi w dobie kontrreformacji,â Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 1 (1956): 165â207; recently: Magdalena Luszczynska, Politics of Polemics: Marcin Czechowic on the Jews (Berlin: De Gruyter 2018), 10â13. The 1566 edict is edited in Irena Kaniewska ed., Diariusz sejmu lubelskiego 1566 roku (WrocÅaw: Ossolineum, 1980), 4â6.
Maciej PtaszyÅski, Reformacja w Polsce a dziedzictwo Erazma z Rotterdamu (Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2018), 615â38.
About Sociniâs influence see KÄstutis Daugirdas, Die Anfänge des Sozinianismus: Genese und Eindringen des historischâethischen Religionsmodells in den universitären Diskurs der Evangelischen in Europa (Göttingen: Vadenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 63â177.
Kriegseisen, Between State and Church, 618â60; id., Die Protestanten in PolenâLitauen (1696â1763): rechtliche Lage, Organisation und Beziehungen zwischen den evangelischen Glaubensgemeinschaften, ed. Joachim Bahlcke and Klaus Ziemer, trans. Peter Oliver Loew and Rafael Sendek (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 19â49.
Jerzy J. Kolarzowski, Idea praw jednostki w pismach braci polskich. U narodzin nowożytnej koncepcji praw czÅowieka (Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2009), 141, 146â47, 211.
See Jan DziÄgielewski, âStosunek arian do paÅstwa polskiego,â in id., O ustroju, decydentach i dysydentach. Studia i szkice z dziejów Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej (Kraków: Instytut Nauk Historycznych Uniwersytetu KardynaÅa Stefana WyszyÅskiego, 2011), 175â87; id., âOd staropolskiego âmiÅoÅnika ojczyznyâ, do âsarmackiego patriotyââ, in Patriotyzm Polaków. Studia z historii idei, ed. Jacek Kloczkowski (Kraków: OÅrodek MyÅli Politycznej, 2007), 21â31 (here 27, fn. 14); Jolanta ChoiÅska-Mika, MiÄdzy spoÅeczeÅstwem szlacheckim a wÅadzÄ : problemy komunikacji spoÅecznoÅci lokalneâwÅadza w epoce Jana Kazimierza (Warszawa: Neriton, 2002), 194.
Recently in Jacek Å»ukowski, âKije strugane, czyli ikonoklazm braci polskich,â Quarta 20 (2011): 27â44; id., SÄ d nad Arianami w kieleckim PaÅacu Biskupów Krakowskich (Kielce: Muzeum Narodowe, 2018).
Benjamin J. Kaplan, Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); id., Reformation and the Practice of Toleration: Dutch Religious History in the Early Modern Era (Leiden: Brill 2019).
Alexandra Walsham, âCultures of Coexistence in Early Modern England: History, Literature, and Religious Toleration,â The Seventeenth Century 28 (2013): 115â37, quote: 115.
Ead., Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England 1500â1700 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006).
Andrew Pettegree, âThe Politics of Toleration in the Free Netherlands, 1572â1620,â in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, ed. Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 182â98, quote: 198; Jacqueline Rose, âDissent and the State: Persecution and Toleration,â in The Oxford History of Dissenting Traditions: vol. 1: The Post-Reformation era, c.1559âc.1689. ed. John Coffey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 313â33.
A list of Schlichtingâs publications in: Philip Knijff, Sibbe Jan Visser, eds., Bibliographia Sociniana. A Bibliographical Reference Tool for the Study of Dutch Socinianism and Antitrinitarism (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2004), no. 2001â2003, 2010, 2023â2026, 2030, 2094â2114, 4123, 6083, 6399, 6551. About Schlichtingâs exegetical works see: Jakub Koryl, âHermeneutyka braci polskich: wprowadzenie,â in Antytrynitaryzm w pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej w kontekÅcie europejskim. ŹródÅaârozwójâoddziaÅywanie, ed. MichaÅ Choptiany and Piotr Wilczek (Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2017), 219â61.
For a short biography, see StaniÅaw Lubieniecki, âExemplum Epistolae Stanislai Lubieniecii de Lubienietz,â in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. 3, part 1 (Irenopoli, 1656) [false place and date, correct: Amsterdam, 1668]; WÅodzimierz Dworzaczek, Schlichtyngowie w Polsce (Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff, 1938), 26â40; Maciej PtaszyÅski, âSzlichtyng Jonasz,â in Polski SÅownik Biograficzny, vol. 48, ed. Andrzej Romanowski (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Societas Vistulana, 2012â2013), 398â403.
StanisÅaw Szczotka, âSynody Arian,â Reformacja w Polsce 7â8 (1936): 81; [Jonas Schlichting], Confessio fidei Christianae edita nomine Ecclesiarum Polonicarum quae unum Deum et Filium eius unigenitum Jesum Christum cum Spiritu Sancto profitentur (LusÅawice, 1642).
See Hans-Joachim Müller, Irenik als Kommunikationsreform. Das Colloquium Charitativum von Thorn 1645 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 233â35, 419â21.
Edited in Ludwik Chmaj, Samuel Przypkowski (Kraków: PAU, 1927), 45â46 and in Dworzaczek, Schlichtyngowie, 31, fn. 1; see also: Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae & combustae manium a Rev. D. Nicolao Cichovio lacessitorum sui vindices (1652), 15â18.
StanisÅaw Szczotka, âClementinus Daniel,â in Polski SÅownik Biograficzny, vol. 4, 90â91; Andrzej WÄgierski, Libri quattuor Slavoniae reformatae, ed. Janusz Tazbir (Varsoviae: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973), 115.
Walter Sparn, âMeisner, Balthasar,â in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (Herzberg Traugott: Bautz, 1993), vol. 5, 1172â74.
Daniel Clementinus, Antilogiae et absurda to jest sprzeciwieÅstwa i niesÅusznoÅci wypÅywajÄ ce z opiniej Socinitów ponurzonych (Cracoviae, 1623).
Mariusz Pawelec, BartÅomiej Bythner starszy (ok. 1559â1629) (Warszawa: Semper, 2008), 87, 89â90.
Maria SipayÅÅo, ed., Akta Synodów Różnowierczych w Polsce (Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1983), vol. 3, 443, 461, 489; Pawelec, BartÅomiej Bythner, 89.
Daniel Clementinus, Antapologia, to iest Odpowiedź X. Daniela Clemenitnusa, na Odpowiedź p. Jonasza Szlichtinka (Baranów, 1630).
Jonas Schlichting, Odpowiedź na script X. Daniela Clementinusa, Nazwany; Antilogiae et absurda, to jest, SprzeciwieÅstwa, y niesÅusznoÅci wypÅywajÄ ce z opiniy Socinitów Ponurzonych uczyniona przez Jonasza Szlichtinga z Bukowca (Raków: S. Sternacki, 1625); id., Na AntapologiÄ ks. Daniela Clementiusa o potwarzach odpowiedź, (Raków: S. Sternacki, 1631), 4â16.
Schlichting, Odpowiedź, 245â46.
Ibid., xx2v.
Schlichting, Odpowiedź, 24, 28; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 177â79.
Id., Odpowiedź, 92â95.
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 1.
Pawelec, BartÅomiej Bythner, 113â14.
Schlichting, Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 290, 292.
Ibid., 16.
See Jonas Schlichting, De ss. Trinitate, de moralibus N. & V. Testamenti praeceptis, itemque de Sacris, Evcharistiae, & Baptismi ritibus. Adversus Balthasarem Meisnerum, Sacrae Theol. Doctorem, et in Acad. Vittebergensi, Professorem Publicum (Raków: S. Sternacki/J. Lange, 1637), 277â78. Alodia Kawecka-Gryczowa, AriaÅskie oficyny wydawnicze Rodeckiego i Starnackiego (WrocÅaw: Ossolineum, 1974), 65â66.
Markus Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft. Theologie, Philosophie und Konflikte am Beispiel des Helmstedter Hoffmannstreits und seiner Wirkungen auf das Luthertum um 1600 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 210â11, 301â3, 365â68.
Ulrich Wiedenroth, Krypsis und Kenosis. Studien zu Thema und Genese der Tübinger Christologie im 17. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 358â62, 411â15, 437â49.
Jonas Schlichting, Quaestio Num ad regnum Dei possidendum necesse sit in nullo peccato Evangelicae doctrinae adverso manere? contra Balthasarem Meisnerum (Raków: P. Sternacki, 1635), 6v.
Id., Quæstiones duæ: vna Num in evangelicorum religione dogmata habeantur, quae vix ullo modo permittant, ut qui eam amplectatur, nullo in peccato perseveret? Altera Num in eadem religione quaedam concedantur Christi legibus inconcessa? contra Balthasarem Meisnerum S. Theologiae Doctorem et in Academia Witenbergensi Profess. publicum a Jona Schlichtingio a Bukowiec disputatae (Raków: P. Sternacki, 1636).
Schlichting, De ss. Trinitate.
Id., Quaestio, 6vâ7r.
Id., Quaestio, 7v.
Fausto Socini, âQuod regni Poloniae, & magni ducatus Lithuaniae homines, vulgo Evangelici dicti, quo solidae pietatis sint studiosi, omnino deberent se illorum coetui adjungere, qui in iisdem locis faslo atque immerito Arriani et Ebonitae vocantur,â in: Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. 1, cap. 3, 696â707; id., âDe baptismo aquae. An homini Christiano aquae baptismo carere liceat,â in Ibid., 709â38.
Balthasar Meisner, Brevis consideratio theologiae Photinianae (Wittenberg: Haeredes Johannis Richteri, 1619).
Jonas Schlichting, De uno omnium Deo Patre illo omnipotente et Filio ejus uno omnium Domino Christo ab ipso facto Fides antiqua contra novatores ad J.A. Comenium (Irenopoli, 1685), 61 (November 28, 1660). See Jan A. Comenius, Antisozinianische Schriften: Auge des Glaubensânatürliche Theologie, ed. Erwin Schadel (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 2008), vol. 2, 63â64, 109â10; Marta BeÄkowa, âZur Problematik der Comeniusâ Beziehungen zum Sozinanismus,â in Socinianism and its Role in the Culture of XVI-th to XVIII-th Centuries, ed. Lech Szczucki (Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1983), 169â82; ead., âDie Brüderunität und der Antitrinitarismus,â in Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, ed. Lech Szczucki (Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci, 2005), 215â28.
Joannes Simplicius, Notae in doctissimi cujusdam viri commentationem ad 2 caput posterioris ad Thessalonicenses Epistolae (1643).
Ludwik Chmaj, âHugo Grotius wobec socynianizmu,â in id., Bracia Polscy. Ludzie, idee, wpÅywy (Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1957), 297.
Anselm Schubert, âKommunikation und Konkurrenz. Gelehrtenrepublik und Konfession im 17. Jahrhundert,â in InterkonfessionalitätâTranskonfessionalitätâbinnenkonfessionelle Pluralität: neue Forschungen zur Konfessionalisierungsthese, ed. Kaspar von Greyerz et al. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003), 105â31.
Florian Mühlegger, Hugo Grotius. Ein christlicher Humanist in politischer Verantwortung (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 163â225; id., âHugo Grotiusâ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sozinianismus,â in Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, 297â326; Jan-Paul Heering, Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion. A study of his work De veritate Religionis Christianae (1640) (Leiden: Brill, 2004); id., âHugo Grotiusâ De veritate Religionis Christianae,â in Hugo Grotius, Theologian. Essays in Honour of G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, ed. Henk J.M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 41â52; Jan Rohls, âFausto Socini und Hugo Grotius über die Autorität der Schrift,â in Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, 327â47; Sarah Mortimer, âHuman Liberty and Human Nature in the Works of Faustus Socinus and His Readers,â Journal of the History of Ideas 70 (2009): 191â211.
Jonas Schlichting, Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace (Irenopoli 1685).
Robert Seidel, Späthumanismus in Schlesien: Caspar Dornau (1577â1631). Leben und Werk (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994), 244â45, fn. 50; Klaus Garber, ed., Handbuch des personalen Gelegenheitsschrifttums in europäischen Bibliotheken und Archiven (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2007), vol. 19 (4,1), 37.
Georg Vechner, Der Anfang des Evangelii Iohannis, von dem Worte Das das Gott War und Fleisch worden ist: Gründlich und deutlich zu Christlicher Erbawung erklähret Und durch eine Weinacht-Predigt Bey der Gemeine Gottes zu Lissa in Polenabgehandelt (1639).
Jonas Schlichting, Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem quam habuit super initium Evangel. Ioannis, Lesnae Anno 1639 (Racoviae: S. Sternacki, 1644), 7â17. See also: Bibliographia Sociniana, no. 2106, 95. Aentekeningh en verklaringh over de ses voornaemste Schriftuurplaetsen, diemen placht te greuycken tot bewijs van de Drie-eenigheydt, en de eeuweige Godtheydt Christi (1649).
SÅawomir RadoÅ, Z dziejów polemiki antyariaÅskiej w Polsce XVIâXVII wieku (Kraków: Universitas, 1993), 23â27, 34â38, 44â58, 63â74, 81â87, 137â40.
MikoÅaj Cichowski, Wizerunek nieprawdy Aryanskiey Postrzeżoney w rozbieraniu WykÅadu na niektóre mieysca Pisma S. o Bostwie Syna Bożego, y o Troycy PrzenaswiÄtrzey (Kraków: W. PiÄ tkowski, 1650).
Ibid., X2vâX3r.
Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae & combustae manium a Rev. D. Nicolao Cichovio lacessitorum sui vidices (1652).
Jonas Schlichting, âEpistola Apologetica,â in Confessionis Christianae.
Ibid., 13â14.
Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum (Irenopoli, 1659).
Jonas Schlichting, Apologia pro veritate accusata. Ad Illustrissimos et potentissimos Hollandiae et West-Frisiae ordines. Conscripta ab Equite Polono (1654). See Kawecka-Gryczowa, AriaÅskie oficyny wydawnicze, 64â73.
Lubieniecki, Exemplum Epistolae. Kai E. Jordt Jørgensen, StanisÅaw Lubieniecki. Zum Weg des Unitarismus von Ost nach West im 17. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 37â45; id., âLubieniecki in Kraków 1655,â in Studia nad arianizmem, ed. Ludwik Chmaj (Warszawa: PaÅstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959), 199â202.
See StanisÅaw Kot, Ideologia polityczna braci polskich zwanych arianami (Warszawa: Kasa im. Mianowskiego. 1932), 116â24, 137, 153; Peter Brock, âDilemmas of a Socinian Pacifist in Seventeenth Century Poland,â Church History 63 (1994): 190â200.
Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum (Irenopoli, 1656), vol. 9, 65â78.
Ludwig Wolzogen, Responsio ad Jonae Slichtingii a Bucowietz Annotationes in Annotationes de Bello, Magistratu et Privata Defensione, in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum (Irenopoli, 1656), vol. 9, 91â132.
Wolzogen, Responsio, 130.
Ludwik Chmaj, Faust Socyn (Warszawa: KsiÄ Å¼ka i Wiedza, 1963); Ogonowski, Socynianizm; Daugirdas, Die Anfänge; Sascha Salatowsky, Die Philosophie der Sozinianer. Transformationen zwischen Renaissance-Aristotelismus und Frühaufklärung (Stuttgart: FrommannâHolzboog, 2015).
Schlichting, Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 342 (âmy EwangeliÄ Jana Å. jako perÅe najprzednieyszÄ prawie pisma Å. sobie poważamyâ).
Jørgensen, StanisÅaw Lubieniecki, 126â29.
Schlichting, Odpowiedź, 44â45; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 283; id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 1â6.
Id., Odpowiedź, 56; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 116, 353â54; id., De ss. Trinitate, 2 (âSpiritus S. denique nomine, non aliam rem ullam, qva coelestem divinumque afflatum, Dei Patris munereâ), 12, 21, 36, 603â65; id., Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem, 88â89; id., De uno omnium Deo, 36â7; id., Reverendi viri D. Nicolai Cichovii. Societatis quae Iesu nomen praefert. Centuria argumentorum caesa (1652), 7â8; id., âDe Fide primorum Christianorum, Martyrum & veterum Patrum,â in De Uno omnium Deo patre, 17.
Jerzy Misiurek, Spory chrystologiczne w Polsce w drugiej poÅowie XVI wieku (Lublin: KUL, 1984).
Grantley McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
Schlichting. De ss. Trinitate, 2 (âNos vero, solius Patris nomines summum illum unicumque Deum rerum omnium conditorem, significari debere dicimus: Filii vero nomine, non alium vllum, quam Iesum Christum hominem, ex Spiritu S. conceptum, & ex virgine natum Mariaâ), 7, 11, 21, 435; id., âCommentarius in Euangelium Joannis Apostoli,â in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. 3, 4 (âHomo est homo, non aliud aliquid, substantiae suae respectu, multo vero minus, divina ante mundum existens persona. Homo excludit omnia quae sunt non homoâ).
Schlichting, Odpowiedź, 3; id., De ss. Trinitate, 47â48 (marg.: âOmnia divinitatis de Filio Dei elogia recte ad ipsam humanam Christi naturam referri possuntâ); id., Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem, 17â18; id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 101â4.
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 341.
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 11, 58; id., Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem, 17â20; id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 10â11.
Id. Odpowiedź, 12; id., De ss. Trinitate, 158.
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 159 (âDe
Id., Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem, 167; id., De uno omnium Deo, 34â35.
Id., Odpowiedź, 169â70; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 7, 154; id., De ss. Trinitate, 2, 146â47.
Id., Odpowiedź, 71; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 208; id., De ss. Trinitate, 7; id., Commentarius in Euangelium Joannis Apostoli, 4â5, 27â28, 53.
Id., Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem, 20, 67, 69, 76â78, 150â51; id., âDe Fide primorum Christianorum, Martyrum & veterum Patrum,â in De uno omnium Deo, 22.
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 104.
Id., Odpowiedź, 11; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 63, 75â80; id., Quæstiones duæ, 136â37, 212, 241â90; id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 70â71.
Id., Odpowiedź, 9, 12, 75; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 332; id., Quæstiones duæ, 288â89.
Id. Quæstiones duæ, 136â37, 212â42; id., De ss. Trinitate, 825â27.
Id. Quæstiones duæ, 291â93.
Ibid., 214.
Ibid., 228, 247; id., Odpowiedź, 14, 141â42; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 62; id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 127â129 (âMetaphora quidam est in Redemptionis voce: at maxima veritas et proprietas est in ipsa reâ).
Id., Odpowiedź, 10; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 101â6, 385â98.
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 16, 119.
Ibid., 30 (ânon absolutam, sed conditionatam praedestinationemâ); id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 158â159.
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 38 (âelectorum numerum non fore certum et infallibilem, sed, prout mutantur homines, mutabilemâ).
Ibid., 30â36, 71â72; id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 29.
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 83â88; id., Quaestio, 41â42; id., Quæstiones duæ, 63; id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 26.
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 67.
Ibid., 87.
Ibid., 88.
Id., Quaestio, 20â21; id., Quæstiones duæ, 88â89 (âNos semper liberum et velle et nolle, sive ante conversionem, sive in conversionem, sive post conversionem homini esse dicimus, ut et virtuti ac vitio, et praemiis ac poenis locum relinquamusâ).
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 66, 68â70.
Ibid., 75, 123, 136â37; id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 5 (âDogma humanae menti inaccessum, relinquamusâ).
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 22 (âFides enim nostra tum, cum Deus occasionem et causam credendi nobis suppeditat, voluntarium est opusâ).
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 78, 125 (âDiximus enim paulo ante, nihil credi posse quod a ratione capi et intelligi nequeat. Nam fides in assensu consistit; assensus judicium sequitur; judicium autem de re ignota et non intellecta nullum estâ).
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 304â5.
Socini, Quod regni Poloniae, 696.
Schlichting, Quæstiones duæ, 313.
Id., Quaestio, 11â12 (âNec enim Evangelium nuda fide contentum est, sed per charitatem efficaci, sed viva, seu tali, quae bonis operibus sit animata, alioquin ad justificationem nihil profuturaâ); id., Quæstiones duæ, 139â40, 158, 325â32; id., De ss. Trinitate, 51â53.
Id., Quaestio, 32, 38; id., Quæstiones duæ, 133â34 (âIustificatio enim nec incipit sine fide ac poenitentia; nec durat sine fidei poenitentiaq. fructibus atque effectisâ), 215.
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 13 (âCaeterum Augustinus in hoc dicto expresse asserit, Deum praedestinare homines non tantum ad vitam aeternam, quod solum volunt Lutherani, sed etiam ad bona opera, seu vitae aeternae consequendae media, ut volunt Calviniani. Unde apparet, et Augustinum cum Calvinianis facere, quod infra negat Meisnerus; et Meisnerum inconstanter Calvinianis objicere, quod eorum praedestinatione tollatur omne bonorum operum studiumâ).
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 191â94.
Id., Odpowiedź, 59â60; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 366â67.
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 701â7, 789 (âVerum cum panis proprie loquendo non possit esse corpus Christi, sed tantum signum corporis Christi, propterea etiam proprie loquendo non edimus corpus Christi, sed figuram et signum corporis Christi. Ad figuram corporis Christi edere et ipsum corpus Christi edere diversissima sunt. Imo si ipsum Christi corpus ederemus, quid attineret panem illius figuram edere?â); id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 23, 112, 126, 138 (âitaque nego sub panis istius & calicis ut loquuntur speciebus quicquam aliud esse quam signum memoriale corporis & sanguinis seu mortis Christi: quas propterea falsum est efferri, cum signa memorialia Deo offerri non solerent, nec illorum ratio quicquam cum oblationibus commune habeatâ); id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 29.
Id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 47 (âSacramenta non tantum signa esse acceptae, sed etiam instrumenta per quae Deus operatur, dando & augendo gratiam, verum est, si recte expliceturâ).
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 707â9; id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 119.
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 709â12, 731â32.
Id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 21 (âCum autem evidenter sit absurdum & contradictionem implicet humanam Christi naturam ubique esseâ).
Ibid., 26 (âIn ritu autem Eucharistico non aliter est corpus & sanguinis Christi, quam quatenus illius memoriale signum ritus iste continetâ).
Ibid., 140â41.
Ibid., 47â48.
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 853â54; id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 105â6.
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 844â45.
Ibid, 853â56 (âUrgemus denique ipsum baptismi ritum, qui totius hominis immersione in aquam, non levi verticis aspersione continetur [â¦] Baptismum vero immersionem totius hominis esseâ).
Ibid., 831 (âErrorem quidem hunc esse, eumque sat gravem, praesertim si infantium baptismus ad salutem necessarius esse statuatur, dicimus; sed nequaquam ita gravem, ut in Ecclesia tolerari prorsus non debeatâ); id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 105 (âIdeo nec eos qui infantes baptizant, damnare audemusâ).
Id. Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 191; id., De ss. Trinitate, 91.
Id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 162â64.
Ibid., 191â92 (âHonorentur ergo Sanctorum (nam umbra certe Petri non superfuit) reliquiae, id est eo se ponantur loco, qui nec profanis usibus, nec superstitionibus pateatâ).
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 51 (âNon divino, inquis, nec latriae, sed duliae cultu. Quid nos ludis vocibus? dulia et latria Synonyma sunt Graecis, eamque serviendi voce in aliis linguis redduntur [â¦] Itaque cum in cultu ad religionem spectante distinguis, nun latriae, sed duliae, perinde est, ac si diceres, non latriae sed latriae, non duliae sed duliae; quod est nugariâ).
Id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 192.
Ibid., 193â94.
Ibid., 192 (âProbe id intellexit sapientissimus mortalium Salomon, qui & in Regia sua, & in Dei templo varia posuit simulachraâ).
Ibid., 201 (âImagines sive sanctorum sive profanorum memoriae tantum, & ejus qui memoria continetur honoris, causa ponere, nullum in se crimen habet. Flexu autem corporis, aut alio aliquo signo, ostendere, apud se in honore esse eum, cujus ea est imago, si id tanquam coelesti menti fiat, res humanas, quamvis iis exemta sit, curanti, Idolatria estâ).
Ibid., 153 (âEcclesia non est societas humana, sed divina; ideoque nullis aliis legibus gubernari debet quam divinis, & ab ipsa sanctitate dictatisâ); id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 187â89.
Id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 59, 152â53 (âEpiscopi non sunt Presbyterorum principes (quo dignitatis titulo nunquam usa est prima illa & sancta Ecclesia) sed presbyterorum praecipuiâ).
Ibid., 154.
Ibid., 54 (âQui si a norma semel & ab initio tradita discedant audiendi non sunt: nec tum plebs subjecta iis esse debet, sed illi plebi, imo cuiq. rectiora monenti ex plebe, secundus ipsius Petris praeceptumâ).
Id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 90.
Ibid., 101 (âQuanto rectius facerent, si ingenii vim ac doctrinae copiam, ingentia Dei dona, ad patefaciendam clarissimae veritatis lucem converterent, & interea tamen non permiscendo falsis vera, paci communi studerent, & Christianos omnes ad mutuam tolerantiam, & permittendam conscientiis libertatem cohortarenturâ).
Id. Quæstiones duæ, 334 (âReliquimus libenter Magistratui sua jura ac potestatem, quam ab ipso Deo accepit, et quidquid ad illum finem obtinendum, quem Magistratus habere sibi debet propositum, publicam nimirum pacem et securitatem, seu bonorum et innocentium defensionem necessarium estâ); id., Notae in Hugonis Grotii Votum pro pace, 155; id. Apologia pro veritate accusata, 79â80.
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 393â94.
Ibid., 426 (âgladium istum, quo armatus a Deo est, in charitatis, ut sic dicam, vagina, si non prematur necessitate, reconditum gestareâ).
Ibid., 375â76, 395.
Ibid., 358â59 (âLicet enim bellum, seu hostium propulsationem cum ipsorum nece conjunctam improbet, et Christi praeceptis contrariam esse dicat; non loquitur tamen de bello, seu hostium invadentium caede, quam Magistratus ipse, conductis eam in rem militibus conservandae Reipublicae causa peragitâ).
Ibid., 410â11 (âVerum meminisse debebas, nos in Platonis republica nequaquam versari, nec de bellorum idei loquiâ).
Ibid., 337.
Ibid., 427 (âIam si quis hinc, quod de Magistratu concedimus, colligat, privatis similiter non omnino hoc praecepto caedium et fundendi sanguinis jus adimi, is cogitare debet, aliam esse rationem Magistratus, aliam privatorum. Ille enim tale a Deo accepit officium, quod sine gladii potestate consistere non potestâ), 437 (âRespondeo primo, nos non agere de Magistratu, sed de privatisâ).
Ibid., 354â55.
Ibid., 365 (âEt tamet ipse Meisnerus agnoscit, homicidium extra necessariam vitae defensionem esse per se et natura sua malum, quemadmodum apparet ex iis conditionibus, quibus privatam defensionem cum caede alterius conjunctam statim ab initio circumscripsitâ).
Ibid., 361, 377â79 (âalia nunc fluunt tempora, quam olim; et alios homines, alios mores desiderantâ), 383, 386 (âLicet enim postea Deus Magistratum in populo suo instituerit, et ei jus gladii in homicidas dederit, bestiam etiam, quae hominem occiderit, necari jusserit, tamen hoc ad ista tempora, quibus antiquissimam hanc legem promulgavit, trahendum non estâ), 412â13.
Ibid., 387â88 (âProfecto Magistratus in hoc negotio non Magistratus officium gessit, sed iniquissimi tyranii personam sustinuit [â¦] Adde, quod Christus, utpote Dei ipsius unicus Filius, omniumq. Dominus ac haeres futurus, Magistratui, qui Dei minister est, vere subjectus non fuerit, praesertim ita, ut Christi capiendi et invadendi [n]ullum jus habueritâ).
Robert von Friedeburg, âIn Defense of Patria: Resisting Magistrates and the Duties of Patriots in the Empire from the 1530s to the 1640s,â Sixteenth Century Journal 32 (2001): 357â82; Alexander Schmidt, Vaterlandsliebe und Religionskonflikt. Politische Diskurse im Alten Reich (1555â1648) (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 27; Luise Schorn-Schütte, Gottes Wort und Menschenherrschaft: politisch-theologische Sprachen im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit (München: C.H. Beck, 2015), 31â130.
Schlichting. Quæstiones duæ, 368 (âNec refert, quod lex naturae suam ab ipso Deo habeat originem. Deo enim leges a se latas, novis et melioribus legibus abrogare liberum estâ), 458 (âNec tantum spectandum est ad quod nos instiget natura, sed etiam quid permittet Christiana pietas et patientiaâ).
Ibid., 384 (âVerum hoc etiam largiamur, Deum hac lege Magistratum instituere, et illi jus homicidas necandi tradere: nam idcirco etiam Christiano homini vere pio ac sancto licebit operam suam ea in re Magistratui commodare, et ejus ministrum agere?â).
Ibid., 405, 433, 456 (âAt vero nos Christiani, quoties a regibus ac magistratibus premimur, non quod non possimus, sed quod nolimus resistere, injurias ferre debemusâ).
Ibid., 421â22.
Ibid., 419 (âAliter enim bella improbant, qui dicunt, Magistratus et politias a Deo malo esse constitutas, Mosen reprehendendum quo bella gesserit, quod Manichaei fecisse dicuntur: aliter illa improbant, qui Magistratus ab ipso Deo constitutos, et gladio etiam armatos esse fatentur, qui Mosen jussu divino bella gessisse asserunt; caeterum Christianos homines, quibus hostes diligere sit imperatum, a bellis et caedibus quantum possunt arcent, nec cuiquam privato, qui vere pius esse velit, ultro in bellum proficisci, et hostes occidere fas esse putantâ).
Zbigniew Ogonowski, âLa liberté de citoyen et la liberté religieuse dans la philosophie politique en Pologne au XVIIe siècle,â Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 39 (1995): 155â62; id., âDer Sozinianismus und das Problem der Toleranz,â in Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, 129â45; id., Filozofia polityczna w Polsce XVII wieku i tradycje demokracji europejskiej (Warszawa: PAN IFiS, 1999), 111â14, 128â34.
Schlichting, Epistola Apologetica, 2, 18.
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 17; id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 4.
Apologia pro veritate accusata, 41 (âPoloniam deinde, infausto omnine commemorant, patriam nostram; quae dum non tantum nobis, sed etiam Euangelicis, & aliis, contra jurisjurandi & faederum fidem, templa adimit, exercendae religionis libertatem labefactat, & variis pressuris ob diversum in sacris sensum, infestam sese praebet; vindicem Dei manum in se provocavit, & iis sese cladibus & calamitatibus involvit, quarum necdum finem videmus ullum; quae quamdiu fartam tectam cuivis servavit conscientiae & religionis libertatem, altissima pace & omnium bonorum faelicitate cumulata floruit; sed ubi vinculum illud, aequabili lege omnes de rebus divinis dissentientes continens, solvi caepit, omnia âin pejus ruere & retro sublapsa referriââ).
Ibid., 3â4 (âAudite caeteri dissidentes, quid & vobis sperandum sit. Ubi nos tanquam non Christianos exegerint, eundem & vobis cothurnum induent; qui ita comparatus est, ut & vestro pedi aeque aptari possit. Sed si juribus, non viribus disceptamus; non vides, cautionem illa pacis, cuique jus facere, ut ex seu sensu & conscientia Christianae fidei rationem limitesque definiat?â).
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 469 (âQuid magis liberum esse debet, quam aliquid dicenti credere vel non credere? cum fidei natura omnem coactionem repudiet. Quis enim, ut aliquid revera credat, vi cogi potest?â); id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 5â6.
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 4 (âNemo enim de alterius Religione male sentit, quin & alter de illius itidem male sentiat. An ergo si nobis hae vires essent, quae nunc vobis sunt, fas foret eundem in vos praetextum sumere, (quo nihil facilius) & sic a communi pace ac libertate vos excludere?â).
Id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 108 (âDiscinta enim inter se sunt, Ecclesia & Respublica, nec sine omnium rerum perturbatione confundi possunt [â¦] Respublica recipit & fovet cujuscunque generis & Religionis homines, etiam idolatras, etiam paganos, etiam haereticos, etiam a Christi nomine apostatas, & illae demum Respublicae vel maxime, populorum multitudinae & civium concordia florentâ).
Id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 38 (âVerum est, Civiles Potestates Ecclesiae Educatores & Tutores esse: sed adversus illos, qui Ecclesiam armis, & externa vi invadunt; non qui solas Scripturas & rationes Iofferunt, parati aut Ecclesiam melius erudire si erret; aut ab Ecclesia, si ipsi errent, erudiriâ); ibid., 116 (âVos, quibus Civilis in alios potestas commissa est, illi ministri, & famuli estisâ).
Ibid., 95 (âMagistratus igitur recte facit, dum in tali discrimine, manum cohibet, ne conscientiae cujusquam vim inferatâ); id. Apologia pro veritate accusata, 116â17, 119.
Id., Odpowiedź, 14.
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 14â15 (âQuod libros meos blasphemos vocet, non miror; sic enim sentit, sic arbitratur; sed quod me in liberrima Respublica blasphemiae nomine damnare fuerit ausus, propter meum ab ipso in Christiana fide dissensum, hoc demiror querorque. Nam quae ipsi blasphemiae videntur, mihi sunt sancta dogmata. Nec mirum, cum et mihi non omnia videantur vera & sancta, quae ipsi videntur esse sanctissimaâ); id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 95 (âNemo nostrum sciens, prudens, blasphemat. Nam quae isti blasphema putant, nobis sancta sunt, & cum ab istis blasphema appellantur, blasphemare eos credimusâ).
Id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 111.
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 5 (âquo jure mea haec Confessio, Christiana dici non posse, in civili foro, pronuntiata est? si Respublica meum mihi sensum & liberum in Christiana religione conscientiam reliquit nec ullum Civem, qui Christianum, se se damnaturam esse tot sanctissimis vinculis fidem suam obstrinxitâ).
Id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 99 (âquid enim aliud est conscientiae, uni vero Deo adstrictae, libertas; quam in Religione sentire quae velis, & quae sentias, libere pronuntiare, &, quod citra cujusque injuriam sit, facere!â).
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 269â70; id. De ss. Trinitate: Praefatio.
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 6, 92â93.
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 95.
Ibid., 159 (âCzÅowiek to byÅ wielki, i mÄ dry, i maÅo sobie miaÅ równych abo i podobnychâ), 173. Peter Bietenholz, âFausto Socini and the New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus,â in Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, 11â28; id., Encounters with a Radical Erasmus: Erasmusâ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 33â68.
Schlichting, Odpowiedź, 104; id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 264â65; id., Quæstiones duæ, 202; id., De ss. Trinitate, 450 (âRecte monet Bezaâ), 482, 625 (âut recte explicat Bezaâ); id., Notae in Georgii Vechneri Concionem, 7, 37, 45, 83.
Id., De ss. Trinitate, 895.
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 101.
Id., Odpowiedźâ¦, 15â16 (âwiÄcey w Calwinie, w Bezie, i w Ojcach, jako je zowiÄ , koÅcielnych siÄ Äwiczycie, i w nich bieglejszemi jesteÅcie niż w samym piÅmie Å.â).
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 27â28; id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 40â41.
Id., Quæstiones duæ, 462.
Id., Na AntapologiÄ [â¦] odpowiedź, 193.
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 6â7, 121â22.
Id., Epistola Apologetica, 3 (âHosium Cardinalem, cum in patria nostra Legatum ageret, & consilio interesset de aliis haereticorum tolerandis, aliis autem regno pellandis (Majores nostri denotabantur) improbasse id consilium proditum est; quod diceret, multum interesse Ecclesiae, si haereticorum inter sese dissensiones relinquerenturâ).
StanisÅaw Reszka, âD. Stanislai Hosii [â¦] Vita,â, in Stanislai Hosii S.R.E. Cardinalis Episcopi Varmiensis [â¦] Epistolae, ed. Franciscus Hipler and Vincentius Zakrzewski (Cracoviae: Academiae Litterarum Cracoviensis, 1879), vol. 1, LXIV.
Schilichting, Confessio fidei. See also the English edition in Georg H. Williams ed., The Polish Brethren. Documentation of the History and Thought of Unitarianism in the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth and in the Diaspora 1601â1685 (Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1980), vol. 2, 389â418; Georg H. Williams, âThe Place of The Confessio Fidei of Jonas Schlichting in the Life and Thought of the Minor Church,â in Socinianism and its Role in the Culture, 103â14.
MikoÅaj Cichowski, Manes Slichtingiani seu trutina vindiciarum manium Confessionis Socinianae: Varsaviae exustae: editarum a D. Iona Slichting. Producta in publicum a Patre Nicolao Cichovio (Typis Viduæ & Heredum Andreæ Petricovii, 1659), 98 (âomissis multis, quae Socino, Smalcioque obiecta purgare non potuit: adeoque suo ipso silentio damnavit [â¦] Tu ipse Domine, non meministi, quae in Antapologia scripseris?â).
Schlichting, Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 63 (âNam de eo, an Deus ille unus, & Patris Personam, quae non sola unus ille Deus sit, & Filii Personam alteram, & Spiritum S. tertiam, sine ulla unius essentiae inter ipsas distinctione, includat, disputare hic in simplice Confessione nolumus, cum istius rei cogitatio, omnem humanum intellectum superetâ).
Confessio fidei [1642], A3râv; Confessio fidei [1651], 4 (âPorro dissimulandum non duximus tertiam Symboli istius partem, quae de fide in Spiritum S[anctum] et in ea quae sequuntur agit, quamvis verissima fidei Christianae dogmata contineat, non ejus tamen antiquitatis a quibusdam censeri, ut eam cum prioribus duabus partibus, quibus fides in Deum et filium ejus Jesum Christum describitur, ab ipso statim initio conjunctam fuisse existimentâ).
Confessio fidei [1642], 22; Confessio fidei [1651], 81.
Confessio fidei [1642], 22 ([Spiritus S. est] âDei promissio, Dei donum quo perfundimur et imbuimur, Dei unctio, Dei virtus, qua remplemurâ); Confessio fidei [1651], 6, 84 (âIdem Spiritus S. est digitus Dei, promissio Dei, donum Dei, quod Deus largitur petentibus se, distribuitque ad arbitrium suum, aliis plus, aliis minus de illo conferensâ).
Confessio fidei [1642], 6, 8. 10; Confessio fidei [1651], 24, 33, 41.
Confessio fidei [1642], 21 (âCredimus igitur Iesum Christum ante mundi jacta fundamenta a Deo praecognitum, et dilectum fuisse, eundemque multo magis ante Abrahamum ita fuisse, ut Abrahamus diem seu tempus illius venturi spiritu prophectico videre potueritâ); Confessio fidei [1651], 75 (âCredimus igitur, Jesum Christum, adhuc âante constitutionem mundi, et ante tempora secularia, a Deo fuisse praecognitum, et dilectum, ut hac ratione, et hoc sensu, adhuc ante constitutum mundum, et tempora secularia, proinde et ante Abrahamum, at ante omnes alios Prophetas fuisse, merito dicaturââ).
Confessio fidei [1642], 12â13 (â[Christus] pro nobis peccatoribus subiit, [â¦] fructus salutares qui ex his divinissimis muneribus Christi in nos promanant [â¦] omnia in coelis ac in terris reconciliavit, et ad pacem adduxit [â¦] per illam munus hoc sanctum expiatorium inchoavit. Nam sacratissimum suum sanguinem effudit, tanquam victima piaculoris, pro peccatis nostrisâ); Confessio fidei [1651], 49â52.
Williams, âThe Place of The Confessio Fidei,â 108.
Confessio fidei [1642], 23; Confessio fidei [1651], 92â93.
Confessio fidei [1642], 24; Confessio fidei [1651], 96.
Confessio fidei [1642], 25; Confessio fidei [1651], 96.
Schichiting, Catechesis, 222 (âquem tamen errorem [â¦] Christiana charitas tolerare suadetâ).
Id., Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 16 (âMajoribus Nobilitatis praerogativa debetur, non quatenus Romanae Ecclesiae fuerunt addicti, sed quatenus viri fuerunt strenui, resque egregias pro patria gesseruntâ).
Kot, Ideologia, 116â24, 137, 153; Brock, âDilemmas,â 197â98.
Schichting, Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae, 23 (âNos non externea gens; sed sanguis Reipublicae, iisdem orti Majoribus sumusâ).
Id., Apologia pro veritate accusata, 40â41.
See Schlichting, Aentekeningh en verklaringh.
Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique (Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1969), vol. 13, 359â60 (Schlichting as âune de leurs [les sociniensâM.P.] meilleures plumesâ); Barbara Sher Tinsley, Pierre Bayleâs Reformation. Conscience and Critism on the Eve of the Enlightenment (London: Associated University Presses, 2001), 317â18; Jeroom Vercruysse, âCrellius, Le Cène, Naigeon ou les chemins de la tolérance socinienne,â Tijdschrift voor de Studie van de Verlichting 1 (1973): 244â320.
John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 314, 319, 494; Nicholas Jolley, âLeibniz on Locke and Socinianism,â Journal of the History of Ideas 39 (1978): 233â50.
John Rogers, âMilton and the Heretical Priesthood of Christ,â in Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern England, ed. David Loewenstein and John Marshall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006), 203â20.
Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 115â16.
Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls eds., Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2005); Stephen D. Snobelen, ââGod of Gods, and Lord of Lordsâ: The Theology of Isaac Newtonâs General Scholium to the Principia,â Osiris 16 (2001): 169â208; id., âSocinianism and Newtonianism: the case of William Whistonâ, in Faustus Socinus and his Heritage, 373â414; Herbert John McLachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951).
Panegyricus Carolo Gustavo, 85.
Jonathan Israel, The Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650â1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 205â8.
Kriegseisen, Between State and Church, 37.
Jonathan Strom, âProblems and Promises of Pietism Research,â Church History 71 (2002): 536â54.
David Sorkin, The Religious Enlightenment. Protestants, Jews and Catholics from London to Vienna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 6â11. Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century: Religion, the Reformation and Social Change (London: Macmillan, 1967), 179â218.
Kriegseisen, Between State and Church, 27.
Leszek KoÅakowski, Chrétiens sans Ãglise: la conscience religieuse et le lien confessionnel au XVII. siècle (Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 51â53.
Jolanta Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce w XVI i XVII wieku (Warszawa: Semper,1997), 14â15.