• Davidis Francis

    David Ferencz

    Davidis Francis


    Davidis Francis, known among the Crypto-Socinians of Altorf by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, was not a Hungarian, as Sandius and many other writers have said, but a Transylvanian, of the Saxon race. The Rev. Theophilus Lindsey justly characterizes him as "a most learned man, of admirable sense, and of a life irreproachable." (Hist. View, Ch. iii. Sect. i. p. 154.) Before he contemplated studying for the Christian ministry, he had made the requisite proficiency in languages, and general literature ; and while yet a youth, his progress was such as not unfrequently to surpass the demands and expectations of his instructors. When, at length, he devoted himself to the study of Divinity, his acquirements were so various, that he soon became a skilful theological disputant ; and his command of language was so great, that those who heard him were struck with wonder and admiration at the powers of eloquence which he displayed. He was appointed tutor to John Sigismund II., son of John de Zapolya, and grandson of Sigismund Augustus, King of Poland ; and acquired great influence over his pupil, who, besides following him as a guide in other matters, adopted, and became interested in the diffusion of his religious opinions.

    At first Davidis supported the views of the Evangelical Lutherans ; and for some time was a warm opponent of those, who adopted the Helvetic Confession. He afterwards inclined to the party of the Reformed Church: then he was led, by his inquiries, into a kind of Syncretism, and, at length, he was converted to the Unitarian faith by George Blandrata.

    While he was Rector of the School at Coloswar, or Clausenburg, he successfully opposed Stancarus, who was charged with exciting disturbances among the Reformed Churches of Transylvania. By some tracts, which Davidis published against this restless man, he so weakened his influence, that, after the death of his patrons, Petrovizi and Anthony Kendi, he lost all his supporters ; and, finding no place of refuge in Transylvania, he retired into Poland. The question in dispute was, In what sense Christ is our Mediator ; whether both in his divine and human nature, or in his human nature only ? Davidis, with the members of the Synod of Clausenburg generally, contended for the former ; and Stancarus for the latter.

    The above controversy took place in the years 1557 and 1558. But it was not the only one, in which Davidis distinguished himself ; for, after his conversion to Unitarianism, he displayed as much zeal and erudition, in opposition to the Trinitarians, as he had previously shewn in his contest with Stancarus. He became the intimate friend of Blandrata, by whose recommendation to John Sigismund II., he was appointed Preacher to the Court at Clausenburg, in which office he displaced Dionysius Alesius, the Lutheran Minister. He was also constituted Superintendent of the Unitarian Churches in Transylvania, and was the first person who held that office.

    Davidis and Blandrata, by their joint labours, succeeded so far as to engage the Prince, and the greater part of the Nobility in their cause, and brought over almost the whole province to their sentiments ; obtaining, for the Ministers and members of their communion, the privilege of professing and preaching their doctrines, without let or hindrance.

    On the 15th of March, 1566, at a Synod, assembled at Thorda, in Transylvania, some Ministers of the Hungarian Churches, with Blandrata and Davidis at their head, published a Confession of Faith, in which they impugned the doctrine of the Trinity. This caused an animated discussion, and led to a separation between the two parties. Of the particulars of this important controversy Lampe has given a minute account, in his "Historia Ecclesiae Reformatae in Hungaria et Transylvania." From the year 1566 to 1578, Blandrata and Davidis appear to have acted together with perfect cordiality ; but in the latter year a disagreement took place between them, concerning the Invocation of Christ, Blandrata affirming, and Davidis denying, that Christ is a proper object of worship. For the purpose of bringing this unhappy dispute to a close, Faust Socin was invited to undertake a journey from Basle, where he was then living, to Clausenburg ; and his expenses were defrayed by Blandrata. Socinus was a guest in the house of Davidis, from November, 1578, to April, 1579 ; during which time the subject underwent a full discussion. By agreement, the arguments were committed to writing from time to time ; and the papers were regularly transmitted by Socin to Blandrata. But the result was, that Davidis, instead of being convinced by the reasoning of Socin, was more confirmed in his own opinion, that Christ is not a proper object of religious worship. The following Propositions, said to contain the opinion of Francis Davidis concerning the character of Christ, together with the Counter-Propositions of Blandrata, were sent to the members of the Diet, with a Convocatory Epistle, written by the latter, and dated Clausenburg, April 7th, 1579. They were printed by Lampe, in his "History of the Reformed Church of Hungary and Transylvania," (pp. 306—311,) from a manuscript copy, communicated to him by Helmecz. In the Works of Faust Socin, (T. II. pp. 801—803,) they are given, with the exception of the first, as "Theses [or Propositions] by which the Opinion of Francis Davidis concerning the Office of Christ is explained, together with Antitheses, [or Counter-Propositions] of the Church, written by Faustus Socinus, and presented to the Most Illustrious Prince of Transylvania, Christopher Bathory." Why the first was omitted does not appear ; nor is it likely that the Propositions ascribed to Davidis were actually penned by him. Some allowance, therefore, must be made for the offensive form , which they occasionally assume; but still, perhaps, they may be regarded as substantially expressing the opinions of Davidis, and others of the same school, respecting the person and offices of Christ, and may enable us to understand, how the charge, brought against Budnaeus, of denying the Christian faith, and embracing Judaism, arose.

             Theses Of Francis Davidis. Antitheses Of George Blandrata.

    1. The man, Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, the wife of Joseph, was conceived and born of the seed of Joseph, in whatever way that may have happened. We believe that he is the Messiah, promised by God in the Old Testament.

    1. The man, Jesus of Nazareth, was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, the Holy Spirit causing this conception, without l'intervention of a man ; and although he was in no way whatever conceived, or born of the seed of Joseph, the husband of Mary, were are nevertheless bound to believe, what he is the Messiah, promised by God in the Old Testament.

    2. The man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, spake not by the prophetic spirit, but only by the Holy Spirit ; and although he was an ambassador from God, yet the words which he spake, in the course of his teaching, are not to be considered as proceeding from the mouth of God himself.

    2. The man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, spake not only by the prophetic spirit, but by a spirit more than prophetic, since he was the express image of God, and in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ; so that, in teaching, he said not a single word, which may not be considered as uttered by God himself, with his own mouth.

    3. Hence it is, that his words, and those of his Apostles, ought to have such authority, that whatever is opposed to them, or seems to be opposed, in the writings of Moses, or the Prophets, must either be altogether rejected, or interpreted by them, as not only explaining the sayings of manifestly agree with the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, which alone ought to be to us the rule of manners and life, and of divine worship.

    3. Hence it is, that his words, and those of his Apostles, are to be tried only by the test of the Mosaic Law, and the other prophetic oracles ; and if anything is found, or seems to be found, either contrary to these, or different from them, it must either be rejected, or so interpreted, that it may Spirit causing that conception, without the intervention of man ; and although he was in no way whatever conceived, or born of the seed of Joseph, the husband of Mary, we are nevertheless bound to believe, that he is the Messiah, promised by God in the Old Testament.
    4. For we must not suppose, that there is any difference whatever, either in doctrine, (especially so far as relates to manners,) or in the divine promises, between the Old Covenant established by Moses, and the New by Jesus Christ: but in this respect only can they be said to differ, that in the Old Covenant there was the ministry of the letter, but in the New there is that of the spirit: so that in no respect ought it to be said, that the former has become obsolete, or in any way old, but confirmed. 4. For as great a distinction must be made between the Old Covenant established by Moses, and the New by Jesus Christ, as between the shadow of the body and the body itself; and both in doctrines, (even such as relates to manners,) and in the divine promises, a remarkable difference must be acknowledged : so that the Old being superseded, except as far as it agrees with the New, we should acquiesce in the New, since the former has not only been changed, but has become completely obsolete.
    5. Especially since the New Covenant existed only for a short season, that is, till the destruction of Jerusalem ; and after that, neither had, nor will have place but in part, till Jesus shall com again, and in his world, in the city of Jesuralem itself restored, reign over the carnal people of Jacob, as the other kings of the earth do, but with perfect justice and holiness. 5. Especially since the New Covenant is eternal, and must endure to the end of the world; nor ever has ceased in any respect, or ever will cease, till the Lord Jesus shall again descend from heaven, and come to jubge the quick and the dead, and shall bestow upon those, who have received and kept this convenant, the reward of a heavenly and eternal life, but inflict the punishment of eternal death upon those, who either rejected it, or, after receiving, have not kept it.
    6. In the mean time, Jesus is indeed the Christ, or King of God's people, but by destination only ; since it is certain, from the oracles of all the Prophets, that the Christ promised by God was to have no other kingdom than an earthly one, and such as has been mentioned above. 6. In the mean time, Jesus is truly the Christ, or King of God's people; for the kingdom of Christ promised by God is not an earthly, but was to be a heavenly one, as Jesus himself and his Disciples have shewn, by their explanation of the divine oracles.
    7. Jesus was sent by God into the world, that he might at once take possession of a kingdom of this kind: but because the Jews, to whom he had been promised, and whose king he ought to be, would not receive him, after he had been slain by them, contrary to the purpose of God, God took him away from them, and translated him to a place, where he rest safely in the protection of God ; for it is in this way that he sits on the right hand of God in the heavens. 7. But that Jesus might indeed obtain a kingdom of this kind, it was necessary, (God so commanding and decreeing,) that he should undergo the death of the cross, to be inflicted on him, according to God's purpose, by the Jews, to whom he had been sent; after which, being raised by God from the dead, he was exalted to the true heaven on high, rests safely in the protection of God; for it is in this way that he sits on the right hand of God in the heavens.
    8. Thus he waits there, till all his enemies shall be subdued unto him, that so he may have his promised kingdom; and, in the mean time, remains in a quiescent state. 8. Therefore, having thus obtained the kingdom promised to him, he governs the whole Church ; and, at the same time, the aforesaid power of God being communicated to him, and God himself moreover authorizing it, he has leisure to subject his enemies to himself, till at length he shall have conquered all but one [viz. death].
    9. He is not therefore any longer to be called God, as perhaps when he was conversant in this world he might be, by reason of his office ; for that office, as we have said, has ceased. 9. He may now, therefore, with the utmost propriety be called God, since, by the appointment of God, he fills an office of the highest dignity, and is invested with the highest divine power both in heaven and on earth.
    10. On which account those persons shamefully err, who adore him now absent, which cannot be done without rendering him divine homage ; since, not even when he was personally present, could he be worshipped, otherwise than by a kind of human and civil homage, without the greatest offense against God. 10. On which account, though now absent, religious adoration is to be paid to him; since, before he received his kingdom, and while he was yet on earth, he was deservedly worshiped with more than human and civil homage. Those who omit to do this, most shamefully offend against God himself.
    11. Wherefore, we also neither can, nor ought to serve him, or pay him reverence, in any other way than by obeying him, and keeping his precepts:— 11. Wherefore, we also are bound both to serve and worship him, as constituted our Lord and God, by the Supreme God, and as most fully reigning over us:—
    12. Nor to confide in him, except so far as to believe that what he has said to us is true; and to entertain a confident expectation, that we shall receive what he has promised us in the name of God. 12. And also to place our hope and trust in him, as in one, who, with God's approbation, actually sets before us our chief good.
    13. But to invoke him, and implore his aid and assistance in our necessities, is just as though any one should implore Mary, and other dead saints, who have never given us the least evidence of their ability either to hear our prayers, or to grant our requests. 13. But to invoke him, and implore his aid in our necessities, is just as though any one should implore God himself, since it is certain that he, in the name of God, can hear our prayers, and grant all things which are needful for us.
    14. We may also call upon him, to pray to God for us, or to obtain anything for us from God ; yet so that, by these modes of expression, us from God ; for he no longer discharges the office of Mediator between God and us. As to what is written, that he still intercedes for us, it only means, that the prayers which he offered up to God while he was here, in behalf of all who should have faith in him, are even now efficacious in the sight of God himself. 14. But neither can we call upon him, any more than upon the aforesaid dead saints, to pray to God for us, or to obtain anything for we acknowledge before God, that all the power of assisting us possessed by him he derived, not from himself, but from God ; since in this sense the Scripture says, that Christ now intercedes for us before God. For he is now, in heaven, a Mediator between God and us, in a much more excellent sense than he was on earth. On earth he announced to us the goodness of God, and truly prayed for us ; but in heaven he himself carries into effect for us the goodness of God, and all the blessings which are derived from God to his Church, are given through him.
    15. His priesthood moreover, if he ever was a Priest, came to an end, when he expired upon the cross ; and his sacrifice neither does nor can profit us, in any other way than, on account of the efficacy of that sacrifice, though already past, which endures for ever: wherefore, his priesthood is said to be an everlasting one, and he is said to be a Priest for ever; and perhaps it is somewhere written, that he still expiates our sins. 15. His priesthood moreover is eternal, and he was truly invested with it, when, after the death of the cross, he entered into the holy of holies, and appeared in the presence of God for us ; where the sacrifice which he made of himself to God, not only by its efficacy, as a thing that is past, but chiefly in virtue of him as the offerer, is profitable to us, so far as, by this offering, he has obtained supreme power ; because it is most clearly affirmed in Scripture, that he always expiates our sins, and continually and unceasingly delivers us from the punishment of our sins.
    16. Therefore, Jesus Christ having left this world, to pass a life of undisturbed repose, we should believe or look to it, that we are not now assisted by him, or his influence with God, any further than as, while he was among us, he shewed us the way of salvation, and taught us how to draw nigh to God, till, when about to receive a kingdom, he shall return to us, and become truly the Christ of God ; and being personally present in this world, shall nourish and sustain us by the power of God. In the mean time, let us always flee to God alone, not trusting in the power of Christ, or in his presence and help. 16. Therefore, seeing that we have such a High-Priest in heaven, set over the household of God, who, living for ever, can save to the uttermost those who come to God by him; trusting in his power and presence, let us not cease to offer up our prayers to our God and Father through him, till, coming from heaven, he shall transform our vile bodies, and render them like unto his own glorious body, by that power, by which he, who is now truly the Christ, can subdue all things to himself.


    "This paper," says Dr. Toulmin, (Mem. of F. Socinus, p. 463,) "shews the great difference between Socinus [for it was no doubt drawn up by him] and Francis David in the sentiments they entertained concerning the character of Christ, and the Christian doctrine. Most persons will be disposed to consider those of Francis David as derogatory to the glory and excellency of the Gospel, and as bearing a greater resemblance to Judaism than to Christianity. Hence he and his disciples were called SemiJudaizers. Mosheim seems to consider this name merely as an ignominious appellation, bestowed upon them by the Socinians from a spirit of rancour, and with a view to render them odious: but I apprehend the reader will be ready to conclude, from the above Theses, that it was really grounded on their sentiments, and expressive of the partial preference they gave to the law of Moses above the gospel of Christ. It is certain that the Invocation of Christ was not the only point of difference between them and the Socinians ; but all the ideas of these two sects concerning the present dignity of Christ, and the perfection of his religion, were totally opposite to each other. It looks as if the former had recourse to peculiar notions on those heads, in order to evade the force of Socinus's arguments for the worship of him, from the high trust, and vast power and dominion with which he was invested by God. The modern Unitarians, who have denied the worship of Christ, have been far from running into notions of his office so derogatory to his dignity, which evidently deprive his disciples of the consolation flowing from the contemplation of his character, and tending to enervate the weight and authority of his precepts. Though, with Socinus, they believe that our Lord does now actually sustain the office of High-Priest for us in heaven, ministering to God, and acting for us, and that he filleth a station of great power and dignity ; yet they do not see the force of these conclusions, which he drew from these sentiments, to vindicate the worship of Christ." Blandrata, with Socinus, and the rest of their party, fearing lest they should be charged with holding the same opinions as Davidis, referred the whole dispute to the Prince of Transylvania, who ordered Davidis to be cast into prison. "It would have been happy," says Mr. Lindsey, (Hist. View, Chap. iii. pp. 159—164,) "if Blandrata had suffered things to have gone on in their own train ; and left the Ministers to settle the point in question among themselves, and with their respective congregations, without interfering himself any farther, or calling in the secular power, as was afterwards done. In which case it may well be conjectured, that the sentiment of Davides would have prevailed, and the worship of Christ, or of any other person, but the God and Father of all, would have been intirely excluded from their Churches. For, after all, Socinus himself tells us, that he neither satisfied Blandrata, nor the Unitarians of Transylvania, nor his Polish Brethren, that he stood upon solid ground in this controversy; because he confessed, that there was no express command in the Scriptures for the Invocation of Christ: so that they would never consent to his printing his own account of it ; and he adds, that at the last it came out by the encouragement, and at the expense of a particular friend. And moreover, while the dispute was depending, or soon after, in a private assembly of some of the Ministers of Transylvania, there had been a general agreement in disapproving the custom of praying to Christ ; and they had come to some resolutions against it, 'Christi invocationi plane adversantia,' says Socinus.—It was laid to Davidis's charge, that he had violated his word, by taking a principal part in the resolutions of this assembly. As this accusation was brought against him after he was dead, and could not defend himself, we cannot determine how far, or whether he was at all blameable ; only we find his friends vindicated him in it intirely. As to that which Socin farther urges against him, viz. that after having been cautioned not to propagate his impious doctrine, (as he calls it, but surely in too dogmatical and imperious a way,) Davidis, on the contrary notwithstanding, upon the very next day, being Sunday, preaching in the great Church to the people, told them in so many words, that there was as much foundation for praying to the Virgin Mary and other dead saints, as to Jesus Christ: there seems to have been nothing reprehensible in this. Who had any just authority to restrain or limit him, in the instructions which he was to deliver from the Scriptures to the congregation ? It might have been his duty, and so esteemed by him, to bear his testimony in this public way, to so important a doctrine, as that which related to the true and only object of divine worship. At the last, however, when Davidis could not be prevailed upon to try to procure a repeal of those resolutions, made by himself and other Ministers, which condemned the worship of Christ, nor would promise to conceal or suppress his sentiments (which was much to his honour, as it was very assuming in Socinus and Blandrata to put him upon it); the civil power interposed, most probably at the instigation of the latter, and three days after Davides had preached the above discourse, the Senate of Clausenburg had orders from the Prince, to remove him from his office of public Teacher, and put him in prison."

    The proceedings against him were of a very summary nature. A Synod was convened ; and to this assembly, consisting of Nobles and Pastors, it was left to acquit, or condemn Davidis, or prevail upon him to recant. On being introduced into the presence of his Judges, he was asked, whether he was the author of the Propositions attributed to him, which not only common report said were his, but which were also ascribed to him by those, who had formerly been his most intimate friends ; and he replied, that he taught the same things as others, who now threw the whole blame upon him. His son-in-law, Lucas, Notary Public of Clausenburg, and Dragetta Sandor, whose religious opinions coincided with his own, and who also shared his imprisonment, asserted the same thing. But he was pronounced guilty, and three days afterwards sent to Deva, where, in three days more, according to Haner, as quoted by Lampe, (p. 304,) he died in a state of frenzy, June 6th, 1579.

    Other accounts say, that the death of Davidis did not take place, till the 15th of November ; and represent the quarrel between him and Blandrata as having originated, not in any actual difference of religious opinion, but in a spirit of revenge, which is said to be the besetting sin of Italians, ("Italorum maximum vitium,") and has therefore been emphatically designated, "Peccatum Italicum." Disgusted with his duplicity, it is said, that Davidis declined all further intercourse with Blandrata, and took measures to destroy his influence in the Unitarian body, which naturally drew upon him the resentment of the wily Physician, and paved the way for those proceedings, which terminated in his own death.

    It has been thought, indeed, that it was Davidis's honesty, and not his heresy, which rendered him an object, first of dislike, and then of persecution ; and that Blandrata, finding him unwilling to cloke his convictions on a subject, which appeared likely to impede the progress of Unitarian views, by deterring the orthodox from embracing them, or even approaching them in a spirit of candid inquiry, resolved upon silencing him, by the strong hand of the civil power. Mosheim, who tells us, that "the little sect" to which Davidis belonged "is branded, by the Socinian writers, with the ignominious appellation of SemiJudaizers," subjoins, by way of note, the following remarks, which may be thought by some to afford a key to the conduct of the Socinian party, not only on this, but on some other occasions, at a later period of their history. "Faust Socin wrote a particular treatise against the SemiJudaizers, which is published in the second volume of his Works, p. 804. It is, however, worthy of observation, that the motive, which engaged Socin and his friends to employ so much pains and labour in the suppression of this faction, was not a persuasion of the pernicious tendency of its doctrines, or peculiar notions. On the contrary, Socin himself expressly acknowledges that this controversy turns upon matters of very little importance, by declaring it as his opinion, that praying, or offering up divine worship to Christ, is not necessary to salvation. We find also Lubieniecius, in his Histor. Reformat. Polonicae, lib. iii. cap. xi. p. 228, speaking lightly enough of this controversy, and representing it as a matter of very little moment ; whence he says, that in Transylvania, there was a storm in a tea-cup. From all this, then, it appears manifest, that Socinus and his followers were more artful than ingenuous in their proceedings with respect to Davidis. They persecuted him and his followers, lest, by tolerating his doctrine, they should increase the odium under which they already lay, and draw upon themselves anew the resentment of other Christian Churches, while, in their private judgment, they looked upon this very doctrine and its professors as worthy of toleration and indulgence." (Instit. H. E. Saec. xvi. Sect. iii. P. ii. C. iv. § xxiii. Not. m. p. 723.) What part Faust Socin took, or did not take, in the proceedings against Francis Davidis, will afford matter for future consideration. In the mean time, it may be remarked, that if he did not regard "praying, or offering up divine worship to Christ" as "necessary to salvation," he may still have considered the difference between his own views and those of Davidis, on this and other kindred subjects, as neither few nor unimportant. Besides, when Lubieniecius expresses himself as he does, respecting the controversy in Transylvania, it may be presumed, that he does not mean to characterize it as useless, or trifling in itself, but that he looks upon it as having acquired an undue degree of importance, by the manner in which it was prosecuted, and the consequences to which it led.

    In the year 1569, Davidis and Blandrata published jointly, "A Refutation of a Writing of George Major, in which he has endeavoured to prove, that God is three in Person, and one in Essence." This work is supposed, by Sandius, to have been printed at Weissenburg ; but though the name of Davidis stands first in the title-page, Blandrata seems to have been the principal author. In the year following, Davidis published, at the same place, "Letters to the Polish Churches, on the Question concerning Christ's Reign of a thousand Years upon Earth." Another work, in Latin verse, has been attributed to him, bearing the inscription, "Dehortatio et Descriptio Dei tripersonati." It has no proper title, or title-page ; and some of the allusions to the doctrine of the Trinity contained in it, are such as do no credit, either to the candour, or taste of the author, whoever he may have been. Sandius makes no allusion to this poem, in his account of Davidis ; but Bock was led, by what he deemed conclusive internal evidence, to attribute it to him. The other writings of Davidis consist chiefly of tracts, in controversy with Faustus Socinus and Blandrata; and are as follow.

    1. Four Propositions, addressed to F. Socin, on the Non-invocation of Christ in Prayer. To these F. Socinus opposed his "Responsio ad Theses IV. Franc. Davidis."

    2. A Confutation of the Answer of Faust. In this "Confutation" Davidis hazards the supposition, that the word , Acts vii. 59, is not in the vocative, but the genitive case, as though Stephen had intended to invoke, not Jesus himself, but the Father of Jesus. This mode of interpretation has recently been advocated by Mr. Herman Heinfetter in a small tract, entitled, ", their Usage and Sense in Holy Scripture. London, 1847, Cradock and Co." 12mo. (Vide Christian Reformer, N. S. Vol. IV. Sept. 1848, pp. 557. 691.)

    3. A Defence of Francis Davidis, intended to shew that Jesus Christ ought not to be invoked in Prayer. This seems to have been the joint production of James Palaeologus, Matthias Glirius, and Francis Davidis ; and was published in 8vo., 1580, and at Basle, 1581.

    4. Some Questions, and Faust Socin's Answer to them. These Questions are inserted in the collected Works of Faust Socin.

    5. A Treatise, in three Chapters, on the Duality ; to which is annexed a second Treatise, intended to prove that the One God of Israel alone, the Father of Jesus Christ, and no other, is to be invoked, and containing the Sixteen Theses proposed in the General Synod at Thorda, April 26th, 1579. A third Treatise also is added, containing Observations on the Nine Theses of George Blandrata.

    6. Three Propositions, to which Blandrata opposed Thirty.

    7. A Reply to Blandrata's Thirty Propositions, in which it is asserted, that Jesus Christ cannot now be called God; that Jesus cannot be invoked in Prayer; and that Justification and Predestination have not been properly understood by Luther and Calvin : together with some Remarks on the Kingdom of that Messiah, whom the Prophets foretold, and who was Jesus Christ. 1578. To the preceding may be added,

    8. A Confession concerning the Trinity ; presented to the Synod of Waradein, in 1569, with Nine Articles. In this Confession Jesus Christ is recognized as an object of adoration and worship (Lampe, Hist. Eccles. Ref. in Hung. et Transylv. L. ii. Anno 1569, p. 227): but it should be recollected, that it was drawn up ten years before the death of Francis Davidis.


    (Vidend. Sandii B. A. pp. 55—57. Bock, Hist. Ant. T. I. pp. 238— 243. Fred. Adolph. Lampe, Hist. Eccles. Reform, in Hungaria et Transyvania, Trajecti ad Rhen. 1728, 4to. pp. 116—311. F. Socini Opera, T. II. pp. 801—803. Toulmin's Mem. of F. Socinus, Ch. ii. Sect. iii.; Ch. iv. p. 325; Append, iii. Lubieniecii Hist. Ref Polon. 1. c. Moshem. Inst. H. E. 1. o. Cloppenb. Opera Theol. T. II. pp. 329, 330. Zettneri Hist. Crypto-Socin. C. ii. § xiii. pp. 200—203. Lindset/'s Hist. View, Chap. iii. Sect. i. Rees's Hist. Introd. to the Racovian Catechism, pp. xli—lxii.)

     DidierLe Roux
    Retour page d'accueil

    Le Roux Didier - Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".


  • Commentaires

    Aucun commentaire pour le moment

    Suivre le flux RSS des commentaires

    Ajouter un commentaire

    Nom / Pseudo :

    E-mail (facultatif) :

    Site Web (facultatif) :

    Commentaire :