Palaeologus James

Palaeologus James   was a native of the isle of Chios, and one of the earliest among the Antitrinitarian Reformers, who taught that Christ was not entitled to the honours of divine worship. Zeltner, who is generally very successful in investigating the history of Crypto-Socinianism, has confounded Palaeologus with   James Suter, the companion of the unfortunate Vehe. Dudithius has entered, at considerable length, into his history ; and calls him sometimes the Chian, and sometimes Palceologus, in the Letters which he addresses to him, and which are preserved in the Elizabethan Library, at Breslau. Stieff, in his Life of Dudithius, has given occasional extracts from these Letters, which leave a feeling of regret in the reader's mind, that he did not give more.

Palaeologus is said to have sprung from the Imperial family of Constantinople. He was one of the many Christians, who took refuge in Italy, after the Turks had become masters of that city ; and during his residence in Italy, was immured in the prisons of the Inquisition, from which he escaped in the year 1559, and fled into Germany. After this he resided successively in Poland and Transylvania, where he zealously propagated his sentiments, and supported them by his publications.

He undertook, with Matthias Glirius, the joint Rectorship of the School at Clausenburg, about the year 1573 or 1574 ; and his opinion respecting the Invocation of Christ coincided with that of Francis Davidis and John Sommer. In other words, he taught, that prayer was not to be oflered up to Christ in any way, or under any pretext whatever. On this account, Socin calls him "a Jew," and "a man quite blinded with hatred of Christ's glory." He says, that "nothing can be devised more profligate, or more debasing to the Christian religion," than this opinion of Paleeologus. He even goes so far as to contend, that, if this opinion be true, "Christ and his Apostles can only be regarded as notorious impostors and falsifiers, and no credit can, or ought to be given to their sayings." Mr. Lindsey, in his Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship from the Reformation to our own Times," enters at considerable length into the subject of Socinus's attack upon Palaeologus ; and shews, that the arguments which he uses, and by which he attempts to justify the Invocation of Christ, would be equally valid, for the purpose of justifying the Invocation of the Virgin Mary. Socin contends, for example, that Christians would want the necessary aid and support, to keep them steady and virtuous in this dangerous world of trial, if they had not one, who had been a man like themselves, to apply to in prayer for help and assistance. "But this remark and assertion," says Mr. Lindsey, (pp. 209, 210,) "was obviously nothing but the effect of custom and pure prejudice, in Socin. Believing himself to have derived the greatest advantages from the use of prayer to Christ, in carrying him safe and innocent through various difficulties in the course of his life, he grew thence, by degrees, to imagine that it was a thing no less necessary for all Christians. So, many pious Roman Catholics have believed themselves to have reaped great spiritual benefit from praying to the Virgin Mary, and have been persuaded that those who neglected it, deprived themselves of a principal means to make them holy and virtuous. But none are to be governed by the fancies and authority of others, but by what the Scriptures prescribe, concerning the Object of Prayer. And these uniformly direct and lead us to make our supplications to the merciful Creator and heavenly Father, as one that careth for us, and who alone heareth, and can help us."

There were other questions, on which Palaeologus differed widely from the Socinians ; for he contended, that Christ did not abrogate the office of the Civil Magistrate, that war was allowable, and that Christians were themselves permitted to bear arms. On these points he was wholly at variance with the members of the Socinian body, whose opinions he combated, and whose favour he took no pains to conciliate.

For many years, the officers of the Inquisition, seconded by the powerful influence of the Pope, exerted their most strenuous efforts to get Palaeologus again into their power, in which they at length succeeded. It is asserted by many writers, that he was imprisoned by order of the Emperor Maximilian II. ; but as that Emperor died in the year 1576, and Palaeologus's second imprisonment did not commence before the year 1581 or 1582, it is clear, that it must have taken place during the reign of the Emperor Rudolph. Dudithius, in a letter addressed to Hagecius, Breslau, January 8th, 1582, alludes to his apprehension, by the Emperor's command, as an event of recent occurrence, and says, that he can imagine no other cause for it, than his religious opinions. "I grieve," he adds, "for the misfortune of the man, who is old, poor, and a foreigner, with a wife and family." In another letter, written on the 29th of the same month, and addressed to the same correspondent, he says, "I fear he will be sent to Rome." In a letter, addressed to Peter Monavius, and written March 15th, 1582, he alludes to a rumour, that the unfortunate Palaeologus is to be delivered up to the Pope, and that the cause of this is his Antitrinitarianism; and in a subsequent letter to John Crato, dated July 30th, in the same year, he says, "they write from Bavaria, where the Emperor now is, that, by the imperial orders, and in compliance with the demand of the Pope, and the petition of his Legate, Palaeologus has been sent to Rome, as an introducer of new heresies." In the same letter he says, "it is to be lamented, that the Caesars are so obedient to the will of the Pontiffs, as to deliver over to punishment, at their request, those to whom both the Emperor himself, and his father, and his grandfather if I mistake not, granted an annual allowance."

Palaeologus was detained a prisoner at Rome for nearly three years, and brought to trial. Some say, that he was remanded to prison, and died there. But it is generally admitted, that he was condemned to be burnt, as Dudithius had predicted in the year 1582 ; for, in a letter addressed to Hagecius, on the 10th of August in that year, he writes thus. "Palaeologus is said to have been taken to Rome, to be offered to Moloch. O, wretched fate!" When he was led to punishment, and saw two persons, accused of Magic, bound to the stake, and roasted before a slow fire, he made a feigned recantation : but on being brought back to prison, and again confessing himself an Antitrinitarian, he was dragged to the pile, and burnt alive, on the 25th of March, according to Bock, but, according to Sandius, on the 22nd of March, 1585. He wrote

1. An Account of the Persecutions at Rome in the Time of Pope Paul IV.

2. A Book on Baptism. The object of this work was to shew, that the Baptism mentioned in the Gospels does not relate to us, who are sons of the covenant. It seems to have been opposed to a little work of Gregory Pauli on the subject of Baptism. (Vide Art. 46, No. 23.)

3. On the Civil Magistrate. Losk, 1573. John Karkan. Simon Budnaeus took charge of the publication of this work. The Racovians published a reply to it, in the composition of which Gregory Pauli appears to have had the principal share. Palaeologus vindicated himself in

4. A Defence of the true Opinion concerning the Civil Magistrate. Losk, 1580. To this " Defence," which was also edited by Budnaeus, a reply was published by Socinus, in 1581, 4to., and reprinted, under another title, at Racow, in 1627, 8vo.

5. A Defence of Francis Davidis by James Palaeologus, Matthias Glirius, and F. Davidis, the Son. Frankf., 1579; Cracow, 1580, 8vo.

6. A true and solid Confutation of the Judgment of the Polish Churches concerning the Cause of Francis Davidis. To this were annexed Three Letters of Blandrata to Palaeologus. (Vide Art. 38, No. 10.)

7. Spondanus, in his " Annal. Eccles.," T. II. f. 573, states, that Palaeologus likewise assisted the Unitarians in their translation of the Scriptures, by which he is supposed to mean, Budnaeus's Version of the Old and New Testament into the Polish language.

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 ".