Seidelius Martin

Seidelius Martin, (Germ. Seidel,) of Olhau, in Silesia, lived at the end of the sixteenth, and the beginning of the seventeenth century. He was, in no sense of the word, a believer in Christianity, and is therefore not included in Sandius's list of Antibinitarian writers; but as Bock has given an account of him, and as there was something peculiar in his opinions, which may interest the reader, it has been thought undesirable to pass him over in total silence. His distinguishing opinion was, that the character of Jesus Christ did not answer to the predictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament. He said, that a Messiah was promised to the Jews, whose kingdom would be an earthly one, like that of David; that this promise, however, was conditional, and dependent upon the continued obedience of the Jewish people to the commands of God; and that, as the Jews did not fulfil that condition, the promise remained, and will for ever remain unfulfilled. Hence he inferred, that the promise, having a reference to the Jewish nation only, is one with which Christians are in no way whatever concerned. This notion, which he defended with great pertinacity, is very similar to the one afterwards developed by Professor Konynenburg, in his celebrated Prize Essay, On the Predictions concerning the Messiah. The following is an outline of the Professor's theory, as given by a contemporaneous writer.

The notion of a Messiah did not become popular among the Jews till after the establishment of their monarchy. David, who was their favourite King, became the standard, by which they formed their ideas of the Messiah. The following are the leading characteristics of the Prophecies concerning the Messiah. First, they are all general and indefinite with respect to the individual predicted, and the time when he was to appear. Secondly, they imply the perpetuity of the Jewish Theocracy, and of Jerusalem as the seat of empire. Thirdly, they coincide with the popular notions respecting the uninterrupted succession of the race of David to the crown. Fourthly, they are all conditional. Fifthly, they describe the Messiah as one, who should restore the religion of Moses in all its purity. Sixthly, they describe him as one, under whose government Israel and Judah should be reunited. Seventhly, they describe him as one, by whom the heathen nations would be subdued, and converted to the worship of the One True God.—Postulates. First, We are not to be implicitly guided by the application, or citation of Prophecy, in the writings of the New Testament. Secondly, Prophecy has not a double sense.—Inferences. First, There is no Prophecy of the Messiah in the Old Testament, before the introduction of monarchical government among the Jews. Secondly, Prophecies, in which mention is made of a future triumphant monarchical government, may refer to the Messiah, but do not necessarily. Thirdly, Prophecies, in which a state of great happiness is predicted, and particularly those which foretel the universal acknowledgment and worship of the One True God, refer to the Messiah. Fourthly, No passage can be regarded as referring to the Messiah, which predicts personal rejection and suffering, as Isaiah 13. See further, on this subject, Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bibliothck der Biblischen Litteratur: des vii ten Bandes ii tea Stiick. Leipz. 1796, S. 333—342; and J . Konynenburg's Untcrsuchung iiber die Natur der Altetestamentl. Weissagungen auf den Messias: aus dem Hollandischen ubersezt. Lingcn, 1795.

Seidelius addressed three letters on this, his favourite subject, to the Minor Church at Cracow; and they were deemed of sufficient importance to call for three replies, which were drawn up by Faustus Socinus, on behalf of that Church. Zeltner, who was not remarkable for his candour towards those from whom he differed in opinion, says of these letters, "hominem non ineruditum fuisse auctorem, (est enim in hoste quoque virtus laudanda,) arguunt."

In his first letter, Seidelius states, that, before he went into Poland, he had laboured for some years to recal his countrymen in Germany from idolatry; and that, when he found his efforts for this purpose unavailing, he resolved to visit the Polish Unitarians, because, in his opinion, they had made nearer approaches to truth than other sects: but he adds, that he came not with a view to exercise any ecclesiastical office, and had no wish to introduce discord among them; and as adults refused to listen to him, he proposed, in future, to confine himself to the instruction of children in languages and the arts, and asked only for a school, or some employment in the way of tuition. But his request was not complied with, and he took his departure, thanking them however for their kindness and hospitality to him as a stranger, and expressing a wish, that, as he could not agree with them in their views concerning the Messiah, all Christians would embrace their opinion, and flee from idolatry, from which he was endeavouring to draw men, though on principles different from theirs.

Besides the three letters above mentioned, Seidelius wrote a treatise, entitled, "The Foundations of the Christian Religion," in which he considered the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, and endeavoured to shew, that the passages cited did not treat in a literal sense of those things, to which the writers of the New Testament applied them. He carefully sought out passages, in which there were discrepancies, or difficulties, which he called errors. In this little work, and others, which are not known to have been printed, but which were industriously circulated in manuscript among his countrymen, he hesitated not to charge the mass of Christians with idolatry.

Another of Seidelius's productions was written expressly "Against the divine Authority of the New Testament, and the supreme Dignity of Christ the Messiah." He scrupled not, indeed, to avow his belief, that the whole of the New Testament was false and useless; and to declare, that the whole of his religion was contained in the Ten Commandments, in which, as he said, the law of nature, obscured and corrupted by man before the time of Moses, was again illustrated. How Bock could admit into his list of Antitrinitarian writers a person holding such opinions as these, is not a little surprising, since he himself acknowledges, that the notions of this singular man were held in abhorrence by the Socinians.

The subject of this memoir is incidentally mentioned by Micraelius, and other Ecclesiastical Historians. Mosheim includes him among the number of those, in the seventeenth century, who, though they did not arrive at that enormous height of folly that leads men to pretend to divine inspiration, yet deceived themselves and deluded others, by entertaining and propagating the strangest fancies, and the most monstrous and impious absurdities. "We shall conclude this crazy list," says he, "with a short account of the very worst of the whole tribe, Martin Seidelius, a native of Silesia, who endeavoured to form a sect in Poland towards the conclusion of the preceding century and the commencement of this, but could not find followers, even amongst the Socinians; so wild were his views, and so extravagant his notions. This audacious adventurer in religious novelties was of opinion, that God had, indeed, promised a Saviour or Messiah to the Jews; but that this Messiah had never appeared, and never would appear, on account of the sins of the Jewish people, which rendered them unworthy of this great deliverer. From hence he concluded that it was erroneous to look upon Christ as the Messiah; that the only office of Jesus was, to interpret and republish the law of nature, that had been perverted and obscured by the vices, corruptions, and ignorance of men; and that the whole duty of men, and all the obligations of religion, were fulfilled by an obedience to this law, republished and explained by Jesus Christ. To render this doctrine more defensible and specious, or, at least, to get rid of a multitude of arguments and express declarations that might be drawn from the holy Scriptures to prove its absurdity, he boldly rejected all the books of the New Testament. The small number of disciples that adopted the fancies of this intrepid innovator were denominated Semi-judaizers. Had he appeared in our times, he would have given less offence than at the period in which he lived; for, if we except his singular notion concerning the Messiah, his doctrine was such as would at present be highly agreeable to many persons in Great Britain, Holland and other countries." On this last remark, Dr. Maclaine, the translator of Mosheim, has added the following note. "We are much at a loss to know what Dr. Mosheim means by this insinuation, as also the persons he has in view; for, on the one hand, it is sufficiently evident that he cannot mean the Deists; and on the other, we know of no denomination of Christians, who boldly reject all the books of the New Testament. Our author probably meant that the part of Scidel's doctrine which represents Christ's mission as only designed to republish and interpret the law of nature, and the whole religious and moral duty of man, as consisting in an obedience to this law, would have been well received by many persons in Great Britain and Holland; but he should have said so: nothing requires such precision as accusations."

Sentiments very similar to those of Martin Seidelius were held by Nicholas Antoine, who was condemned by the council of Geneva, on the 20th of April, 1632, to be strangled and burnt. An account of the Life and Trial of this eccentric and unfortunate man, taken from the "Harleian Miscellany," 8vo. IV. 168—176, may be seen in the "Monthly Repository" for July, 1812, Vol. VII. pp. 409—418.

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 ".