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

1992 / 1. (119.) szám

[i.e., Dávid] (Possevino 1586, 78-79).

Erasmus’ contemporaries named him, perhaps not without reason, the homo pro se or “the most selfish person.” It was he who made his own Roman Catholic Church a laughingstock and simultaneously demanded tolerance for it. His pacifism was out of touch with all reality. At a time when the Turks were continually attacking Europe, he regarded this peril as simply an opportunity for converting them. He forgot how St. Francis had once arrived at the court of the Sultan with similar missionary zeal, and how when he had begun to preach to the Sultan about love, with his Bible in his hand, the Padishah had him thrown into the sea. Likewise, Erasmus also forgot the Hungarian missionary, Bálint Újlaki, who among other things had translated the Hussite Bible into Hungarian and afterwards preached with such success in Constantinople that the Sultan had him flayed alive. With such missionary utopianism, Erasmus contributed a lot to the neutralist attitude of the Unitarians in the face of the hazard coming from the Islamic Turks. Those Unitarians whose radicalism led them into trouble simply went over to Turkish-occupied territory, and some even became Turkish soldiers supporting Turkish imperialism.

The Christian solidarity of the humanists was unravelled by ill-founded notions. Because they were convinced that if they cast aside the dogmas of Christianity, the Mohammedan conquerors would mercilessly put an end to all religious fanaticism; they were ready to exchange the God of the Trinity for Jehovah and Allah, thus blending two worlds into one. They forgot, however, to clarify which God concept they adhered to — the fatalistic enforcer who paralyzes the will, Allah; or the angry one, Jehovah; or the loving, pardoning Christ.

Not surprisingly, Melius, bishop of Debrecen, accused his former fellow-bishop, Dávid and his Christology of being pro-Turkish. This touched the Unitarians on their most sensitive point, because at that time sympathy with the Turks was part and parcel of Antitrinitarian beliefs, as illustrated in the case of Neuser. At a meeting of the Synod, Melius begged that they be spared the blasphemy of the fanatical Turkish sympathizers. Unfortunately, his pertinent article, “Antithesis veri et turcici Christi” [the antithesis between the true and the Turkish Christ] has been lost, and it is only thanks to the preserved answer to it that a reconstruction has been possible. In short, Melius stated in his accusation that the Antitrinitarians and Dávid’s supporters daily degraded Christ to the status of man and in this showed Him to be no different from the Christ of the Turks (Melius Juhász 1568). In this view, Melius was supported by one of Francis Dávid’s erstwhile faithful collaborators, Stephan Bazilius- Balázs, who also accused Dávid of being a Turkish sympathizer (Bazilius, 1:253}.

Perhaps the most serious accusation against turcophile Antitrinitarians came later from the ruler Stephan Báthory, who succeeded John (János) Sigismund. Bringing a bill before the Diet, Báthory asked that the numerous heretical movements, including Mohammedanism, be outlawed throughout the coun26 rTT-OTT 25. évi. (1992), 1. (119.) *zám

try, because, as pointed out by the Saxon historian Teutsch, they wanted to wipe out the true Christian faith (Teutsch 1862). These examples show how Francis Dávid and the Unitarianism that had developed in Transylvania were compromised by the humanistic reformers and political adventurers who had sought refuge there.

Francis Dávid and Giorgio Blandrata succeeded in making Unitarianism the “court religion.” With the support of John Sigismund an important number of the population of Transylvania were converted to the new Unitarian teachings and many modern dialecticians of historical materialism would like to consider this a plebeian progressive movement and the Reformed Church of Debrecen a reactionary antithesis. They regard Melius’ church as arrested in its development and rigid in orthodoxy.

In fact this is a rash and hasty evaluation, because in Transylvania, from the ruling class down, the aristocracy and most of the lesser nobles were united in the so-called plebeian church. As historian Antal Pirnát determined in a most impartial way, there is no proof that the antitrinitarian movement developed from the bottom up and that the working class became its living testimony (Pirnát 1962, 165).

One of the Marxist apologists of Dávid, Tibor Klaniczay, relates that the plebeian element in the end excommunicated Dávid and his followers rather than practice a progressive (radical) theology. To present this movement as that of a radical religious leader or that of various ideologies engaged in a class struggle seems a somewhat far-fetched evaluation (Klaniczay 1961, 115).

Thanks to the chronicle of Sebastian Boross, a contemporary of Dávid, there is a much more credible observation as to how the working class, which has been described as radical, behaved:

The common people are ignorant and confused, because they are all Calvinists of the Melius ilk or Unitarians of the Dávid persuasion, who propagate the tenets of their beliefs, with great energy. In the end, however, the people draw closer to the Unitarians because Mobile mutatur semper cum Principe vulgus Regis ad exemplus totus componitur orbis, or The common people undecided always follow the prince. The world accommodates itself to the head that wears the crown (Mikó 1855,1:337).

In his method of religious criticism, Dávid did not emphasize faith in search of truth, but rather spiritual wisdom or understanding. Thus rationalism became a bridge over which Greek, Italian, German, and other humanists poured into Transylvania with their own adventuresome theological notions. They wished to help Dávid gain recognition for his endeavors, which aimed at reconciling faith, reason, and transcendental metaphysics with earthly immanence, in this way drafting a new Christology.

To just what degree the citizens of Kolozsvár were supposedly inclined to accept dialectical materialism and join the battles of the working class is demonstrated by an Antitrinitarian-Anabaptist minister, Elias, according to whom the true Christian way of life could