Itt-Ott, 1992 (25. évfolyam, 1/119-3/121. szám)

1992 / 1. (119.) szám

the end it was his apolitical behavior that sealed his fate. Unlike Dávid, Melius, the theologian of Debrecen, and the Catholic ruler Báthory, represented the tragic awareness of national danger. Both accused Dávid and his followers of being pro-Turkish, and in this condemnation of the Unitarian faith political reasons played a role. In 1594 the Voivode Sigismund Báthory settled an account with his turcophile opponents, who were radical antitrinitarians as well as supporters of union with the Turks (Szabó 1982, 230).

So the existential question of the nation made urgent the cessation of all activity that would tend to bring about a religious and social breakup. For the same reason the doors of Déva castle finally closed upon Dávid in 1579.

The historical background of this development points to the fact that Dávid lost his freedom not only for religious reasons but for political ones as well. Thus, while the anti-German political and religious stance brought John Huss to the stake, it was the apolitical-theological attitude of Francis Dávid that destroyed him.

The events of that age prove that history does not recognize the possibility of separating the Church from society. Society and the state defend freedom of religion. Religion, on the other hand, is a force that inspires history and whose raison d’etre is to hold together the culture of the nation. This is particularly true in the history of East Central Europe, where church and state were divided only after the Second World War. An important task of church history is to show the very considerable influence that the leader of a non-conformist religion can exercise on the social life of the age. Where one sectarian leader with anti-social asceticism undermines the established society when he idealizes a former church as a religious utopia, another discovers the cause of all ills in the past of the established church and gives out “prophetic judgements.” In this way a religious movement can become a destructive force that only criticizes, and destroys itself and society.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Hungarian Christianity was in constant tension because of the danger represented by the Islamic Turks. That is why religion became especially important. While the Protestant Church was trying to establish itself amid dangers, Francis Dávid with his radicalism tied down for decades the country’s spiritual and political energy. Cultural and spiritual activity of the state were paralyzed and reduced to religious issues exclusively. A laming effect on political life resulted. The fact that over a period of thirty-one years (1545-1576) some thirty meetings of the National Diet took place to deal with religious questions illustrates this clearly. Finally a compromise was reached in the Pax Dissidentium, out of which the free practice of four confessions was bom.

Usually what took place at the meetings of the National Diet was a “dialogue of the deaf.” Religious leaders proclaimed their a priori principles for weeks on end and described the horrors that lurked in the dogmas of their adversaries. At such times there were voices that asserted ever more loudly “Whosoever says

22 rrr-on 25. évf. (1992), 1.(119.) szám

‘yes’ to Christ will have to say ‘no’ to religious division.” Dávid could not bear the thought of competitive church authorities living together in one country. So when Péter Melius Juhász became bishop of Debrecen, he became a counteractive force in Dávid’s path. It may be true that in order to rise to great heights in one’s own age and to become a divisive leader one must have an opponent of equal mettle. The history of the Hungarian Reformed Church gives account of Melius’ role as Dávid’s opponent. For decades, the attention of the country was held by these two exceptionally gifted personalities, and in the shadow of the Islamic peril they finally agreed upon an Edict of Tolerance (1568), which was the first to be introduced into European church history. It involved the official recognition of four confessions. Dávid played an eminent role in this development, because, having been a leading bishop in the Lutheran as well as the Reformed Church before, and now being a Unitarian bishop, he fought for and won acceptance of all four.

Francis Dávid, the beginnings

Dávid was bom in Kolozsvár between 1510 and 1520. The city, founded by the Romans, was once known as Claudiopolis. His parents were of Saxon origin and, as was the humanistic custom of the time, Francis latinized his name to Franciscus Davidis on the basis of his father’s Christian name. In his literary activities he used the Hungarian form of his name, Dávid Ferenc.

With the help of two Hungarian patrons he set out early for foreign universities, first to the Lutheran Wittenberg, where he enrolled at two different times, and then to Frankfurt am Main. He ended up studying at the Roman Catholic Academy of Padua in Italy (Székely 1839, 78). He spent almost six years abroad. It is true that his family data are scarce, but this much is certain: the epidemics of the time did not spare his family. Three marriages produced four children, of whom two were boys, two were girls. It is assumed that one daughter became the wife of the famous theologian Johann Sommer, who was of German descent and who himself later became victim of the plague (Pirnát 1962, 50). Dávid’s second wife divorced him under scandalous circumstances, and the ensuing trial cast an unpleasant light on Dávid, condemning him as being the cause of the family trouble.

For a short time after his return from abroad, Dávid served as a Catholic priest. But, in 1555, he was a Lutheran minister and in time became a bishop and leader of the Lutheran Evangelical Church in Transylvania for four years. He soon adopted the much more radical precepts of the Helvetic confession and, in his capacity first as pastor for five years and then as Reformed bishop, he brought these new teachings to his people.

From the year 1566, following newer developments in the field of faith and dogma, he wrote his name on the pages of church history as the founder of the Unitarian Church. In his last period he became remarkably active in writing, growing always more radical in his religious precepts. Perhaps it was only by death that he was prevented from becoming a theologian of