The Johns Hopkins Press of Baltimore
=American Journal of Mathematics.= Edited by FRANK MORLEY, A.
COHEN, Associate Editor, with the coöperation of CHARLOTTE
A. SCOTT, A. B. COBLE, and other mathematicians. Quarterly.
8vo. Volume XLVI in progress. $6 per volume. (Foreign postage,
twenty-five cents.)
=American Journal of Philology.= Edited by C. W. E. MILLER, with
the coöperation of M. BLOOMFIELD, H. COLLITZ, T. FRANK, W. P.
MUSTARD, and D. M. ROBINSON. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XLV in
progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign postage, fifty cents.)
=American Journal of Psychiatry.= E. N. BRUSH, C. M. CAMPBELL,
GEORGE H. KIRBY, A. M. BARRETT, and H. DOUGLAS SINGER,
Editors. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume IV in progress. $5 per volume.
(Foreign postage, fifty cents.)
=Hesperia.= HERMANN COLLITZ and JAMES W. BRIGHT, Editors.
Twenty-one numbers have appeared.
=Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports.= 8vo. Volume XXI in progress. $5
per volume. (Foreign postage, fifty cents.)
=Johns Hopkins Studies in Romance Literatures and Languages.= D. S.
BLONDHEIM, GILBERT CHINARD and H. C. LANCASTER, Editors. 8vo.
Two numbers have appeared.
=Johns Hopkins University Circular=, including the President’s
Report, Annual Register, and Catalogue of the School of
Medicine. Nine times a year. 8vo. $1 per year.
=Johns Hopkins University Studies in Education.= E. F. BUCHNER,
Editor. 8vo. Nine numbers have appeared.
=Johns Hopkins University Studies in Geology.= E. B. MATHEWS,
Editor. 8vo. Five numbers have appeared.
=Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political
Science.= Under the direction of the Departments of History,
Political Economy, and Political Science. 8vo. Volume XLII in
progress. $5 per volume.
=Modern Language Notes.= J. W. BRIGHT, Editor-in-Chief, G.
GRUENBAUM, W. KURRELMEYER and H. C. LANCASTER. Eight times
yearly. 8vo. Volume XXXIX in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign
postage, fifty cents.)
=Reports of the Maryland Geological Survey.= Edited by E. B.
MATHEWS.
=Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity.= L. A. BAUER,
Editor. Quarterly. 8vo. Vol. XXIX in progress. $3.50 per
volume. (Foreign postage, 25 cents.)
* * * * *
THE ECLOGUES OF BAPTISTA MANTUANUS. By W. P. Mustard. 156 pp.
$1.50.
THE PISCATORY ECLOGUES OF JACOPO SANNAZARO. By W. P. Mustard. 94
pp. $1.25.
THE ECLOGUES OF FAUSTUS ANDRELINUS AND JOANNES ARNOLLETUS. By W.
P. Mustard. 123 pp. $1.50.
THE ECLOGUES OF ANTONIO GERALDINI. By W. P. Mustard. 84 pp. $1.50.
MARTIAL, THE EPIGRAMMATIST AND OTHER ESSAYS. By K. F. Smith. Edited
by W. P. Mustard. 180 pp. $2.
WEST FLORIDA CONTROVERSY, 1798-1813. By I. J. Cox. 702 pp. $3.
AN OUTLINE OF PSYCHOBIOLOGY. By Knight Dunlap. 145 pp. 84 cuts.
$2.50.
THE LIFE AND STORIES OF THE JAINA SAVIOR PĀRÇVANĀTHA. By M.
Bloomfield. 256 pp. $3.00.
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND ECONOMIC WELFARE. By J. H. Hollander. 132
pp. $1.25.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND INSURANCE: AMERICAN ADDRESSES. By Sir Arthur
Newsholme. 284 pp. $2.50.
CHINA AT THE CONFERENCE. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY. 435 pp. $3.00.
TABLES OF √(1 - _R_²) AND 1 - _R_² FOR USE IN PARTIAL
CORRELATION AND IN TRIGONOMETRY. By J. R. MINER. 50 pp. $1.50.
VECTOR ANALYSIS AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. By F. D. MURNAGHAN.
136 pp. $2.75.
FATHER TABB: A STUDY OF HIS LIFE AND WORKS. By F. A. LITZ. 303 pp.
8vo. $2.50.
INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS, WASHINGTON.
A complete list of publications sent on request.
THE REFORMATION IN POLAND
SOME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
SERIES XLII No. 4
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
Under the Direction of the
Departments of History, Political Economy, and
Political Science
THE REFORMATION IN POLAND
SOME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
BY
PAUL FOX, PH. D.
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
1924
COPYRIGHT 1924 BY
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
J. H. FURST CO., PRINTERS, BALTIMORE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface vii
Chapter I. Development of the Reformation in
Poland 9
Chapter II. Social Causes of the Polish Reformation 64
Chapter III. Wealth of the Polish Church in the
XVIth Century: Its Effect on the
Polish Nobility 84
Chapter IV. The Conflict between the Polish Nobility
and the Clergy: Its Economic Aspects 101
Appendix 138
Bibliography 149
PREFACE
In the foreword to his book on “The Reformation in Germany,” Prof.
Henry C. Vedder makes this statement: “The great religious struggle
of the sixteenth century was only a phase of the social revolution
then going on in Europe and effecting a transformation of all its
institutions. Momentous economic changes were the underlying cause
of political and religious movements.… The external events of the
Reformation have been told before with substantial accuracy; what
is now needed is illumination of the facts by the light of this new
knowledge.”
The present study on the Reformation in Poland attempts to gather
together material of social and economic nature and to point out that
the underlying causes of the rise and spread of the Reformation in
Poland were chiefly social and economic rather than religious, or
even purely political. Viewed in this light, the rapid rise and the
phenomenal growth of the Polish Reformation, as well as its almost
complete collapse in the course of the following century, become
quite intelligible. Had the movement had its roots in deep religious
convictions, it would have survived the changes in social institutions,
but, having been inspired and stimulated in its early development by
economic motives, it lost its dynamic force with changed economic
conditions by the end of the sixteenth century.
Owing to the fact that the writer has had access to only a part of the
great abundance of source material bearing on this subject, the study
does not pretend to be exhaustive. However, it has the merit of being
the first attempt to portray the development of the Polish Reformation
in the light of economic causes, and in the judgment of the writer the
conclusions here reached and the interpretation given the movement are
essentially sound.
In this place the writer wishes to express his indebtedness to Dr. John
M. Vincent, Professor of European History at Johns Hopkins University,
for his encouragement in the prosecution of this study and for his
valuable suggestions and criticisms, and to Miss Mary C. Stokes, of the
Historical Department in the University, for her careful reading of the
manuscript before its going to press.
THE REFORMATION IN POLAND
SOME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
CHAPTER I
DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFORMATION IN POLAND
_The Background of the Polish Reformation._--The Reformation found in
Poland a fertile soil and a congenial atmosphere for its spread and
growth.
To begin with, the attitude of the Polish princes was one of
independence. They had from early times carefully guarded and
vigorously defended their royal rights and prerogatives against the
church’s pretensions and efforts at usurpation of power. When, for
instance, Stanislaus Szczepanowski, bishop of Cracow, encouraged by
Gregory VII’s triumph over Henry IV, attempted to make Gregory’s policy
prevail in Poland by placing himself at the head of the disaffected
powerful Polish aristocracy, to whom a strong executive power was
distasteful, and who desired to dethrone the reigning king and to
enthrone his weak subservient brother, Boleslaus the Bold (1058-1080)
did not hesitate to put the rebellious bishop promptly to death.[1]
When Archbishop Henry Kietlicz, under the influence of Innocent III
(1198-1216), determined to introduce the Gregorian reforms into Poland
at any cost, Wladislaus, surnamed Langshanks (1202-1206), resolutely
opposed the move even at the cost of his throne.[2] Again, when the
Polish clergy opposed a change in the payments of tithes, from payments
in kind to payments in money, Boleslaus the Bald, of Silesia, ordered
the imprisonment of Thomas, bishop of Breslau, together with one of his
canons, had them put in stocks, and though the archbishop of Gnesen
excommunicated Boleslaus and the Pope ordered the archbishops of
Gnesen and Magdeburg to proclaim a crusade against him, Boleslaus did
not yield until Thomas made peace with the prince by paying a fine of
2000 silver marks and by agreeing to payments of tithes in money.[3]
And when later the bishop of Breslau opposed the levying of a tax on
the clergy for the benefit of the prince’s treasury, Boleslaus’ son,
Henry, now prince of Silesia, exiled the recalcitrant bishop. Though
excommunicated for this act by the archbishop of Gnesen, he did not
permit the bishop’s return until after five years of exile, the bishop
finally yielding and submitting to the tax.[4]
Besides these instances, there were others. Leszek the Black
(1279-1288) was at odds with the bishop of Cracow, Paul of Przemankow.
The bishop, an implacable enemy of the king, conspired against
the king, incited the aristocracy against him, and caused even an
invasion of Little Poland by the Lithuanians and the Jadźwings. The
king dispersed the invaders, confiscated the bishop’s property, and
imprisoned him in the Castle of Sieradz, putting him in stocks. It was
only when the Pope threatened Leszek with excommunication that the
king liberated the imprisoned bishop.[5] In the fourteenth century
Casimir the Great (1333-1370) imposed a tax on episcopal property.
The Polish high clergy resented that, and excommunicated the king.
Casimir ordered the priest, who brought the bull of excommunication to
him, to be seized and drowned in the Vistula River. And since Casimir
was a powerful and popular ruler, the clergy took due warning, and
desisted from further provocative steps.[6] Moreover, it is worthy of
note that while in Germany the right of investiture was surrendered
as early at 1122 by the Concordat of Worms, in Poland the princes
defended and retained the right as late as 1206.[7] And in the second
half of the fifteenth century, taking advantage of the existing schism
in the church at that time, they again regained it, and made it a
permanent and indisputable prerogative of the Polish crown.[8] Even
such a loyal son of the church as Sigismund the Old (1506-1548) did not
allow the Pope to interfere with his right in this particular. When at
the beginning of Sigismund’s reign the Pope deliberately nominated a
candidate for the bishopric of Płock, the king refused to accept the
papal nominee, stating that he would never consent to such violation of
the country’s laws by allowing anyone else to nominate the kingdom’s
senators. Again, when later in Sigismund’s reign Pope Hadrian VI was
delaying his approval of the king’s nomination of Leszczyński to the
bishopric of Posen, Sigismund notified the Vatican that the Pope’s
refusal to comply with his just wishes might result in unpleasant
consequences to the Holy See; whereupon the Vatican at once approved
Leszczyński’s nomination to the bishopric of Posen.[9]
An equal measure of independence characterized the Polish high clergy
in respect to its relation to the Vatican. Prince Wladislaus II
(1138-1146), striving to establish a strong unified and centralized
government in defiance of the provisions of his father’s will, which
divided the kingdom among four of his sons, aroused the opposition
of the aristocracy and of the clergy, to whom a strong centralized
government was very unpalatable. James of Żnin, archbishop of
Gnesen, as leader of the opposition, excommunicated the stubborn
ambitious prince, and forced him to abdicate. Wladislaus appealed
his case to Conrad III, emperor of Germany, and to the Pope. Both
of them responded, the emperor with a military expedition and the
Pope with a legate. When on arrival in Poland the Pope’s legate,
Cardinal Guido, was unable to secure a return of the throne to
Wladislaus, he excommunicated the opponents, and placed the country
under an interdict. The Polish bishops, however, paid no attention
to the legate’s excommunication and interdict; and Wladislaus,
though supported by the Pope, had to remain in exile until his death
in 1159.[10] Wladislaus, surnamed Langshanks (1202-1206), in his
opposition to the Gregorian reforms, upon which Pope Innocent III
insisted, had the support of many high church dignitaries among the
Polish clergy. Philip, bishop of Posen, for instance, refused to
promulgate in his diocese the papal interdict, under which Archbishop
Kietlicz was instructed to place the country.[11] To what extent the
Polish clergy disregarded papal decrees may be seen from the fact that
though Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) decreed a general enforcement of
celibacy among the Roman clergy, marriage among the clergy of Poland,
according to the historian Długosz, was still generally common as late
as the close of the twelfth and the first quarter of the thirteenth
century.[12] It is quite instructive to note that even such high church
dignitaries as John Łaski and James Uchański, both archbishops and
primates of Poland, the first from 1510 to 1531 and the second from
1562 to 1578, were very unfavorably disposed toward the Vatican. As
bishop and secretary of state, Łaski declined to support the Pope’s
project of forming a league against the Turks. As archbishop of
Gnesen and primate of Poland, he worked for the emancipation of his
archbishopric from Rome to such an extent as to alarm not only his
enemies, but even his friends and the king himself.[13] Uchański’s
orthodoxy and loyalty to Rome had been long under suspicion at the
Vatican; so much so that when Sigismund Augustus (1548-1572) appointed
him to the bishopric of Chełm, the Pope did not ratify the appointment
for several years, and when the king promoted Uchański to the bishopric
of Kuyavia, the Pope refused to sanction the promotion altogether. This
served only to estrange Uchański from the Vatican still more, and led
him, especially on his elevation to the archbishopric of Gnesen, to
entertain plans and to advocate the advisability of calling a National
Synod and of withdrawing the Church of Poland from the jurisdiction
of Rome.[14] When the papal legate, Commendoni, dreading such a
consequence, urged the Vatican to forbid, contrary to the decisions
of the Council of Trent, the holding of Provincial Synods in Poland
for fear that one of them might at any time be turned into a National
Synod, the Polish bishops rose in protest against it in the senate of
the Diet, going even so far as to declare that the king, and not the
Pope, was their overlord and judge.[15]
The people, too, manifested the same spirit of independence in their
attitude toward the church, whenever occasion demanded. In the eleventh
century they arose in rebellion against the oppression of both state
and church, particularly the church, owing to the foreign character of
its clergy and their burdensome exactions. They demolished churches
and monasteries, drove out the priests and the monks, and reverted
to paganism.[16] In the struggles of the state with the papacy for
supremacy the people generally supported the state. This explains the
boldness and self-confidence of the Polish rulers, with which they
successfully opposed the pretensions of the papacy much longer than the
German emperors.[17] The papal anathema, hurled against recalcitrant
princes and shaking the very foundations of Western thrones, fell in
Poland without causing much disturbance or harm.
Another factor, which in a large measure prepared the soil for the
spread of the Reformation in Poland, was humanism.[18] The new turn
in literature and philosophy reached Poland early in the fifteenth
century, and found many friends both among the laity and among the
clergy.[19] One of the most distinguished Polish humanists was John
Ostrorog (1402-1501), a doctor of both laws from the University of
Erfurt and a strong advocate of the supremacy of the state over the
church. In his dissertation, “Monumentum pro reipublicae ordinatione
congestum,” Ostrorog wrote in 1473:
The Polish king recognises nobody’s supremacy save that
of God; instead of assuring the new Pope of his obedience
he will sufficiently fulfill his duty if he congratulate
him, and at the same time remind him that he should rule
the church justly. It is below the dignity of the king to
write to the Pope with humility and humbleness.… The clergy
should help bear the burdens of the state as well as other
citizens; there is no need of being indignant when the king
orders the melting of church utensils for public needs.
The church has gold not for the purpose of keeping it, but
for the purpose of helping the needy. All payments for the
benefit of the Pope should be abolished. Poland needs all
the funds she can spare for war with invaders and for the
preservation of domestic order and peace. The proclamation
of jubilee papal bulls as well as fees for funerals,
marriages, etc., should be prohibited. The king should
nominate the bishops. In order to decrease the number
of idlers, the establishment of monasteries in cities
should be restricted, the admission for foreigners to them
prohibited, and sermons in the German language diminished
in number.[20]
“Such were the predominant sentiments of the time,” says Dr.
Lewinski-Corwin, “in true keeping with the teachings of humanism, which
spread in Poland through constant contact with Germany and Italy, in
the principles of which several generations preceding the Reformation
had been reared, and in accordance with which they shaped their views
and opinions.”[21]
The condition of the Polish church and the character of the Polish
clergy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, too, were favorable to
the spread of Reformation ideas in Poland. Lorkiewicz characterizes the
Polish church and the Polish clergy of this period thus:
The church, which by its calling and its nature, should
be the guardian of the oppressed, the defender of the
weak against the strong, the moral guide of men, and
the regulator of social conditions, had allied itself
with those social factors which sap the very life-blood
of society, offering it in exchange only a form without
content, a body without a soul. It had become a ballast,
not such as steadies the easy movement of a light vessel,
but such as threatens the storm-tossed ship with certain
destruction. The clergy, if it is fit to use such
unpalatable comparison, was at this time like an old church
beggar, who, having said the prayers that had been paid
for, had nothing more pressing to do than to hurry and in a
particular and characteristic manner waste the alms he had
received.[22]
The Polish clergy led as dissolute a life as did the clergy elsewhere
in Europe. The Polish bishops were far more interested in their
incomes, their social standing, and in their political influence than
in religion and morals. The indignation of the nobles, therefore,
at the freedom the clergy enjoyed from taxation and other burdens
was intense. They were strongly opposed to church tithes and to
ecclesiastic jurisdiction, and resented papal interference in matters
of state.[23]
_Pre-Reformation Reform Movements._--Into this receptive Polish
soil the seed of religious reform had been sown from time to time
for nearly four hundred years; and as it grew and developed, though
greatly hindered from time to time, it helped to create an atmosphere
favorable to the main religious reform movement of the sixteenth
century. The followers of Peter Waldo, persecuted in Italy, sought
safety in other countries. As early as 1176 some of them found refuge
in Bohemia, and others settled in Poland, near Cracow.[24] Here they
spread their master’s teachings, and found many adherents both among
the Czechs and among the Poles. Polish chronicles record the names
of a number of Waldensian Poles.[25] In time these Waldensians must
have become sufficiently numerous and active; for Pope John XXII found
it imperative to appoint in 1326 a special Inquisitor for Poland in
the person of Peter of Kolomea, a Dominican,[26] and in 1330 the
Inquisition discovered that there were many Poles and Czechs visiting
the Waldensian churches in Italy and making liberal contributions to
them.[27]
Wyclif’s influence reached Poland by way of Bohemia through the Masters
of the University of Prague, who at the Polish king’s request became
the reorganizers of the University of Cracow.[28] Andrew Gałka, a
professor in the University of Cracow, an ardent admirer of Wyclif and
a diligent student of his works, wrote a poem in which he praised the
English reformer, and denounced the priests as servants of the German
emperor and his Antichrist, who suppressed the truth and taught the
common people falsehoods.[29] For this poem and for having Wyclif’s
works in his possession he was expelled from the University and
imprisoned. He escaped, however, from his imprisonment, and sought the
protection of Boleslaus of Silesia, whence he carried on an extensive
correspondence, justifying his position and urging his readers to read
Wyclif’s works.[30]
Owing to the existence of close political and intellectual
relations[31] between Bohemia and Poland in the fifteenth century,
Hussitism found easy access to the latter country, and attracted many
followers and sympathizers from among the Poles. Its anti-German,
anti-papal, and nationalistic character found a responsive chord
in their hearts. Huss and his ideas met with great favor on the
part of many of them. At the Council of Constance the Polish lay
representatives sided with the Bohemian delegation, and loyally
defended Huss and his cause to the last. A number of powerful Polish
aristocratic families, like Spytek of Melsztyn, Abraham of Zbonsz,
Dersław of Rytwian, and others, became ardent supporters and defenders
of Hussitism.[32] Abraham of Zbonsz harbored and protected Hussite
preachers in his possessions for years in spite of the fact that
he was excommunicated for this offense by the bishop of Posen.[33]
Hussitism was spreading in Poland to such an extent as to cause alarm
among the church authorities. The archbishop of Gnesen, Nicholas
Tromba, called a synod to assemble at Kalisz, at which it was decided
to apprehend suspected heretics and to deliver them into the hands of
ecclesiastical tribunals.[34] Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki used his
influence with the king, and secured from him the Edict of Wieluń
(1424). By this edict the new teachings were declared to be deadly
errors of heretics, contemptible to God, detrimental to the Christian
faith, enervating to the body politic, inflammatory of perverse
hearts, and should be repulsed and kept out of the country, if need
be, by the sword. Heretics, protectors of heretics, and heretical
suspects were to be regarded as traitors, and were to be punished
by death. Those coming from Bohemia and entering Poland were to be
examined by Inquisitors, and if suspected of heresy, they were to be
detained. Polish subjects, whatever their class or condition, visiting
or residing in Bohemia, were to return to their country by next
Ascension Day; and if they failed to do so, they were to be regarded
as heretics, subject to punishment as heretics. Obstinate heretics
were to be punished by confiscation of property in favor of the crown
treasury,[35] and neither the offenders themselves nor their posterity
were to be admitted to any public office or to any official honors. And
Polish merchants were forbidden to export anything to the heretics of
Bohemia.[36]
In spite of this drastic edict, intended to check the spread of
Hussitism in Poland, the Bohemian Hussites sent some of their
emissaries to Cracow in 1427 for the purpose of conducting religious
discussions. The Polish historian Długosz, who was Cardinal Oleśnicki’s
secretary, reports that such a discussion, in which the Hussite
representatives and the Roman Catholic doctors of the University of
Cracow participated, was actually held in the city of Cracow in 1431,
in the presence of the king, and characteristically adds that the
heretics were vanquished, but would not admit it.[37]
On January 30, 1433, due again to Cardinal Oleśnicki’s influence,
another royal edict was issued against the heretics. Its intention was
to lend effectiveness to ecclesiastical excommunications by providing
for seizures by the starostas[38] of the property of excommunicated
church offenders, who had been under the ban of the church for more
than a year without effort to have it lifted.[39]
It seems that even this measure did not materially help to keep the
Hussite heresy in check. After the death of Wladislaus Jagiello in 1434
the Hussites were strong enough to offer some opposition to the regency
of Cardinal Olesńicki; for he and his party entered into a pact of
confederation at Korczyn on April 25, 1438, for the purpose of acting
together to subdue any possible political or religious disturbance.[40]
To counteract this, the opposition, headed by Spytek of Melsztyn, the
acknowledged leader of the Hussites, entered into a similar pact on
the third of May of the year following. This step on the part of the
Hussites led to a clash between the two confederated parties, resulting
in Spytek’s death, confiscation of his property, and in the ruin of the
Spytek family.[41]
That all these measures were ineffective to check the spread of
Hussitism in Poland is further evident from the fact that Casimir
Jagiello (1447-1492), the king who restored to the Polish crown the
right of investiture, lost to the Pope in 1206, issued in 1454 an order
to the civil authorities in the dioceses of Gnesen, Posen, Włocław, and
Płock to the effect that they cooperate with the appointed inquisitors
in running down heretics.[42] It must not be supposed, however, that
Casimir Jagiello was a zealous defender of the Roman Church and a
determined opponent of Hussitism. In 1462 he entered into an alliance
with the excommunicated Hussite king, George Podjebrad of Bohemia,
and maintained the alliance in the face of strong inducements as well
as threats from the Catholic party to break it. When the Pope in his
opposition to Podjebrad had gone so far as to attempt a crusade against
the Hussites in Poland, Casimir sternly prohibited the proclamation of
it.[43] In the western parts of Poland the traces of Hussitism were so
deep that as late as 1500 the nobility of Great Poland demanded the cup
at communion.[44] The work of the Hussites was reenforced by demands
for reform, made by loyal sons of the Church of Rome, who had caught
the spirit of Hussitism. Two men, both professors of theology at the
University of Cracow, though at different times, Matthew of Cracow
and James of Paradyż, became especially conspicuous within the Polish
Roman Catholic Church in the fifteenth century for their advocacy of
reform. Matthew of Cracow was born in 1330 of a family of town clerks
(Stadtschreiber). Having received his preparatory education in his home
town, he went to study theology at the University of Prague, where he
took all the University degrees one after another, and finally in 1387
became professor of theology. In 1394 he went as professor of theology
to the University of Heidelberg, and in 1396 he was made rector of
that University. In 1397 he was called to Cracow for the purpose of
reorganizing the University, founded in 1364 by Casimir the Great.
The University of Prague made an indelible impression upon him, and to
its influence he felt that he owed everything. His conception of the
church and his views of church matters were likewise the product of
the University of Prague. And Matthew became not only a theologian,
but also a reformer. While at the University of Cracow, he published
in 1404 a pamphlet under the title, “De squaloribus curiae Romanae.”
In it, as well as in his sermons, lectures, and other writings, he
condemned simony, defended the superiority of church councils over
the Pope, severely criticized the existing form of religion as a mere
semblance of Christianity, held the stupidity of church theologians
responsible for the decline of scriptural religious faith, and demanded
reforms.[45]
As the spirit of the University of Prague made Matthew of Cracow, so
the spirit of Matthew’s theology made James of Paradyż. Born about
1380, James entered the monastic Order of the Cistercians at Paradyż
at the age of twenty. In 1420 he was studying at the University of
Cracow, from which in 1432 he received its highest degree, namely that
of Doctor of Decretals, or of Theology. In 1431 he participated in the
famous public discussion with the Hussites in the king’s presence.
Though loyal to the Church of Rome, James nevertheless became an ardent
advocate of church reform, particularly of the monastic life. He went
so far as to propose the confiscation of monastic property of all
monastic orders which had become too worldly. In consequence of this
revolutionary proposal, he was forced to leave his Order at Mogila
and his chair of theology at the University of Cracow. Accustomed to
the discipline of the monastic life, however, he entered the Order of
the Carthusians at Erfurt, and continued his labors along the line
of church reform both by preaching and by writing until his death in
1464.[46]
That by the beginning of the sixteenth century the ground in Poland was
fairly well prepared for the spread of the coming Reformation is made
further evident by the character of some of the books published and the
opinions circulated in the country at that time. In 1504, for instance,
there appeared from the press in Cracow two significant books, “De vero
cultu Dei,” and “De matrimonio sacerdotum.” These books contained views
decidedly unfavorable to the church, and, as it was to be expected,
were condemned by it. In 1515, Bernard of Lublin, writing to Simon
of Cracow, expressed the opinion that the Gospel was all-sufficient
for faith and practice and that all other precepts of men could be
dispensed with.[47]
_The Spread of the Reformation in Poland. First Period, 1518-1540:
Early Beginnings and Struggles._--The Reformation reached Poland soon
after its outbreak in Germany, and spread rapidly. Following lines of
least resistance, it penetrated through the established channels of
trade and commerce and education into the larger commercial centres,
where there was a considerable German element, and into the life of
the country aristocracy, which sought knowledge and culture in the
universities of Germany.
The first Polish city to feel its influence and to respond to it was
the important commercial city of Danzig. In less than a year from
the posting of Luther’s theses on the door of the castle church at
Wittenberg, Luther’s reform doctrines were preached and championed in
Danzig. The man who accepted them and began to preach them publicly was
James Knade, a monk and preacher at the Church of St. Peter and St.
Paul. Knade renounced his monastic vows, married Anna, the beautiful
step-daughter of James Rohboze, a wealthy burgher of Danzig, and,
fearlessly opposing Rome and Roman practices, advocated reforms in the
church. Being a popular preacher, liked and respected by the people
of the city, his activity was very dangerous to the Church of Rome.
He was, therefore, seized, by order of the bishop of Kuyavia, tried,
found guilty, and imprisoned. Shortly after his imprisonment, he was
released, but had to leave the city. He took refuge on the estate of a
country gentleman by the name of Krokow, near the city of Thorn, where,
protected by his patron, he continued his reform activity without
further interference.[48]
Suppressed for a time, the reform movement broke out again four years
later with accumulated force. The interval had given the people of
Danzig time to think, to form opinions, and to take sides either
for or against the Reformation. The year 1522, therefore, found the
majority of the people of Danzig in favor of the Reformation. Some,
however, wanted to carry it through conservatively, others by radical
action. The advocates of conservative reform were drawn from among
the well-to-do, and included the city council. The radicals came from
the plebeian class, and represented the wishes of the common people.
The conservatives favored the dogmatic aspect of the new reform
movement, and opposed changes in organization, forms, and practices.
The radicals, on the other hand, kept their eyes on the practical
aspects of the new ideas, and proposed to carry them out to their
logical limit.[49] The leader of the conservative reform party was
Dr. Alexander, a Franciscan friar, an eloquent preacher, thoroughly
educated and well balanced. The leader of the radical reform party was
James Hegge, at first preacher at various churches outside the city
wall, then prebendary of St. Mary’s, the largest and most beautiful
church in the city, and still later of St. Catherine’s. Hegge was
likewise an eloquent and popular preacher and a man of a very practical
turn of mind.
While Hegge was the first to come forward in July, 1522, with a fresh
attack upon the Church of Rome and its clergy, advocating the necessity
of religious and ecclesiastical reforms both in doctrine and in
practice, the conservative reform party, headed by Dr. Alexander, was
able to control and to guide the movement for some time.[50] At length,
however, the control of it passed into the hands of the radicals.
These were not satisfied with any half-way measures, like preaching the
new doctrines, while still retaining the old forms and practices. They
began to demolish all sacred pictures, to clean out the churches of all
forms of idolatry, and to give up old practices.[51] Owing to their
strength and pressure, the conservative city government was induced to
issue a proclamation, freeing all monks and nuns from their monastic
vows, forbidding new candidates to enter any monastic order, and
restraining all monks from preaching, hearing confessions, soliciting
contributions, and visiting homes.[52] Conscious now of its power,
the radical reform party went still farther, and demanded a share
in politics and in the government of the city, with the result that
early in 1525 it finally overthrew the conservative aristocratic city
council, and established a popular city government.[53] The new city
council closed all monasteries and convents, abolished Roman forms of
worship, took possession of all church property, and appointed Lutheran
preachers.[54] In its results, then, the Danzig Reformation was not
only religious and ecclesiastical, but also social and political.
The accomplished reforms, however, were too thorough-going and too
far-reaching to be lasting. The ecclesiastical authorities and the
overthrown city council appealed to King Sigismund I (1506-1548) for
help. The king, a loyal Catholic, first sent a commission to inquire
into the situation and to restore the old order of things. When the
insurrectionary city government would not yield to the representatives
of the royal commission, the king in person set out for Danzig,
accompanied by an armed force, forced the new city government into
submission, punished fifteen of the revolutionary lay leaders by
ordering them to be beheaded, and restored the former aristocratic city
government and the Roman Catholic form of worship.[55]
In reality the king’s intervention restored only the old political
order of things. The old religion was restored in outward appearance
only, and for the time being as a matter of expedience. At heart the
people of Danzig remained thoroughly sympathetic with the new religious
teaching and the proposed religious reforms. So did the aristocratic
city council now restored again to power as a result of the king’s
intervention. With the restoration of the conservatives to power
every effort was made to preserve the old forms of worship. At the
same time the conservative aristocratic city council saw to it that
to the pulpits of all the more important city churches only preachers
sympathetic with the new teaching were appointed.[56] Under the
leadership of this council and such conservative and tactful men as Dr.
Alexander, Urban Ulric, Peter Bischoff, Pancratius Klemme, and Klein,
the Reformation in Danzig went forward quietly, and by 1540 became an
accomplished fact, not only in spirit, but also in form. This being the
case, the king acquiesced.[57]
The Reformation spread rapidly to other West Prussian cities, and
was accepted everywhere with enthusiasm. In the city of Thorn, the
birth-place of Copernicus, Luther’s doctrines were preached as early as
1520-1521. That they were favorably received and found many adherents
may be seen from the following incident. The papal legate Ferrei,
having come to Thorn at this time, proceeded publicly to burn Luther’s
portrait and some of his writings before the Church of St. John.
The residents of the city made an attack on him and his followers,
drove them away with stones, and rescued Luther’s picture from the
flames.[58] It is more than probable that the ferment the Reformation
was causing at Thorn was partly responsible for the publication in
that city, July the 24, 1520, of the king’s Thorn Edict, by which
the importation of Luther’s writings into the land were forbidden
under penalty of confiscation of all property and of exile from the
country.[59]
In Braunsberg, the seat of the bishop of Warmya, the Lutheran form of
worship was introduced in 1520 without the bishop’s persecution of the
innovators. When the cathedral canons upbraided the bishop for his
leniency, he laconically replied that Luther based his doctrines on
the Scriptures, and that whosoever felt himself capable of refuting
them was welcome to undertake the job.[60] Other West Prussian cities,
too, felt the force of the new movement, and responded to it in varied
degrees. The Reformation struck roots into the West Prussian soil so
deeply that even the vigorous suppression of it in Danzig in 1526 and
the following reaction through West Prussia were unable to exterminate
it.[61]
The attitude of the West Prussian cities toward the Reformation exerted
a strong influence on the Duchy of East Prussia, since 1466 a vassal
principality of Poland.[62] In 1525, the year when the Reformation
resulted in most far-reaching changes in Danzig, Albert Hohenzollern,
Grand Master of the Order of the Teutonic Knights, left the Roman
Church, accepted Lutheranism, secularized the possessions of the Order
with the consent of the Polish king, and by the Treaty of Cracow
of the same year became the secular hereditary ruler of the vassal
Duchy of East Prussia with a right to the first seat in the Polish
Senate.[63] The Pope and the German emperor naturally protested against
this arrangement, but without any effect. Owing to the popularity of
the Reformation in West Prussia and the revolution it caused in the
city of Danzig, and fearing that a refusal to grant Albert’s request
might lead him to bring to a head the reform movement in the whole of
Prussia and possibly tear the whole Prussian territory away from the
kingdom, Sigismund I preferred to sanction the arrangement described
above even at the risk of being suspected of disloyalty to the Church
of Rome.[64] In accordance with the agreement made with the Polish
crown, Duke Albert commanded, by an edict issued July 6, 1525, that
the Holy Gospel, the word of Christ, pure and simple, be preached in
his possessions “under the penalty of exile.”[65] At the same time he
made every effort to evangelize the population of the Duchy. For this
purpose he secured through Bishop Speratus of Pomerania the publication
at Wittenberg of Luther’s Shorter Catechism. A copy of this catechism
he sent in 1531 by Nipczyc to Chojnicki, archdeacon of Cracow, who read
it eagerly.[66]
The introduction and legalization of the Reformation in East Prussia,
one of Poland’s autonomous provinces, exerted a potent influence in
favor of the movement’s spread in other parts of the country. Duke
Albert became a patron and promoter of the new movement. He established
in Königsberg a press, from which thousands of Polish religious
pamphlets and books were issued, and a university, in which several
generations of Polish Protestant ministers received their education.
Thus East Prussia became a place of refuge for reformers and adherents
of the new faith, persecuted in other parts of Poland, as well as a
training ground for Polish Protestant clergy, and a source of Polish
Protestant literature.[67]
In the neighboring Duchy of Mazovia the Reformation did not make much
progress. Yet even here it evidently met with some success; for Duke
Janusz of Mazovia felt it to be necessary to issue in 1525 at a council
assembled in Warsaw an edict, forbidding, under penalty of death and
confiscation of all property for the benefit of the ducal treasury, the
possession and reading of Luther’s writings in whatever language, the
teaching of his doctrines, or any discussion of them with anyone.[68]
Owing to the close proximity of Great Poland to Saxony and Wittenberg,
Luther’s reforms reached it quickly. In 1524 King Sigismund found it
necessary to dispatch a special emissary in the person of Nicholas
Tomicki, starosta of Kościan, to the town of Kościan to suppress the
spread of heretical views there, and to call upon the town authorities
to assist Tomicki in his mission in every way possible.[69] In the
city of Posen, according to Prof. H. Merczyng, Luther’s doctrines
were preached publicly from the pulpit of Mary Magdalene’s Church by
its preacher, John Seklucyan, in 1525.[70] For this offense Seklucyan
was removed from his post by the magistracy of the city at the king’s
behest. He found a protector, however, in the powerful magnate Andrew
Górka, who sheltered him in his own palace in Posen, and secured for
him from the king in the course of time a position as secretary of
customs in that city.[71] Seklucyan remained in Posen until 1544,
when he removed to Königsberg, where he was very active for a number
of years in the preparation and publication of Polish Protestant
literature.[72] The Reformation found favor with and protection from
some of the most powerful aristocratic families of Great Poland, like
the Górkas, Bnińskis, Tomickis, Ostrorogs, and Leszczyńskis.[73] The
German reform movement was reenforced in Great Poland by the arrival
there in 1548, on their way to East Prussia, of the Bohemian Brethren,
exiled from their own country. During their brief stay in Great
Poland, under the protection of the Górkas, they made many friends,
won a considerable following, and laid the foundation for the Bohemian
Brethren Church of Great Poland. Though forced to move on by a royal
decree, issued on request of the bishop of Posen, many of them returned
later, when conditions had changed, and settled in Posen and other
places of Great Poland. By 1557 the Bohemian Brethren had thirty
churches in Great Poland, and some of the foremost families, like the
Leszczyńskis, Krotowskis, Ostrorogs, Opalińskis, and Tomickis, accepted
their form of the Christian faith.[74]
In Little Poland, too, the Reformation was making a good deal of stir
among certain classes of the population, and was creating a good deal
of uneasiness among its opponents. The new ideas, soon after their
appearance in Wittenberg, began also to be circulated in the city of
Cracow. Luther’s books were imported into the city in defiance of the
Edict of Thorn, were freely circulated and read, and his doctrines were
even publicly preached.[75] So popular were Luther’s writings and his
ideas in this city, that they caused the king, writing from Grodno,
February 15, 1522, to Chancellor Szydłowiecki, to recommend to the
City Council of Cracow that it diligently cooperate in the enforcement
of the Edict of Thorn.[76] A little more than a year later, March
7, 1523, a new edict was issued in the city of Cracow, in which the
king recognized that the penalty provided in the Edict of Thorn had
failed to check the circulation of Luther’s books and the spread of
his teachings in the capital, and consequently made it more severe.
The transgressors of the edict were to be punished not by exile, as
heretofore, but by burning at the stake as well as by confiscation of
their property.[77] Evidently even this edict failed to accomplish the
desired object; for three months later, August 22, 1523, another royal
edict appeared. This new edict provided for the search of the homes
of the residents of the city of Cracow for heretical books whenever
the bishop of Cracow should ask the city magistrates that such search
be made. It also provided for the censorship by the rector of the
University of all books printed in the city or imported from abroad.
Persons in whose possession heretical books were found, or publishers
and booksellers who published, imported or sold heretical books, were
to be punished according to the provisions of the royal edicts.[78]
This edict also calls on other municipalities to adopt similar measures
for the stamping out of heresy.
These royal decrees were called forth not by imaginary fear of a
non-existent evil, but by actual and steady growth of the Reformation
in Poland. There are a number of episcopal court cases on record of
persons arrested and tried for heresy. In 1522 the parish-priest of
Bienarów, near Bicz, Voyvodship of Cracow, was arrested for praising
and sympathizing with Martin Luther. In 1525 sixteen persons were
charged in the city of Cracow with professing Luther’s teachings,
breaking fast-day regulations, denying the efficacy of prayers for the
dead, the existence of purgatory, and the value of confession. These
persons were of the lower social class, artisans, organists, singers,
etc. In the face of the severe penalties provided for such offenders
by the royal edicts, all the accused naturally denied being guilty
of the charges. In 1526 there were two cases of priests charged with
heresy. One of these was Bartholomew, rector of the school of Corpus
Christi in the suburb of Kazimir; the other Matthew of Ropczyce.
The latter was sentenced to confinement in the clerical prison at
Lipowiec. There was also a case of a book-dealer, called Michael, who
was charged with the importation of heretical books; and one of a
Bohemian blacksmith charged with denial of Christ’s presence in the
consecrated host. In 1530 another book-dealer by the name of Peter
was charged with importing Luther’s Catechism. He defended himself
by stating that he possessed only six copies of it. On December 10,
1532, four influential citizens of Cracow were charged with professing
Lutheranism. A similar case came up the year following. Book-dealers
seem to have been the worst offenders and the hardest to deal with. In
1534 two Cracovian book-dealers, Hieronimus Wietor and Philip Winkler,
were charged with selling books containing Lutheran doctrines. At the
same time similar books were found to be in the possession of Matthew
of Opoczyn, rector of the church at Sieciechów. The most significant
case on record, however, was that of James of Iłża, preacher of the
Church of St. Stephen, Cracow, “artium magistri et collegiati minoris
collegii.” James started to preach Luther’s doctrines openly from
the pulpit of his church in 1528. When called to account for it, he
denied being guilty, and his case was dismissed. But when he continued
preaching the heretical doctrines publicly, he was again haled before
the bishop’s court. This time he was ordered to retract the Lutheran
errors publicly from his pulpit. Instead of doing that James escaped to
Breslau. In consequence of that he was at once adjudged and condemned
as a heretic.[79]
It is evident that neither royal edicts, nor episcopal court decrees
were able to check the spread of the religious reform movement in
Poland. The new ideas invaded even the king’s court, and found
followers among those nearest to the king and to the queen. Justus
Decius, the king’s private secretary, was an admirer of the Reformation
and knew Luther personally. Francis Lismanini, an Italian Franciscan,
private confessor of Queen Bona, was a most ardent promoter of the new
movement.[80]
The spread of the Reformation in Poland is registered not only in
the royal edicts, but also in the resolutions and decrees of the
ecclesiastical provincial synods. The clergy were not particularly
desirous to carry on a war with the religious innovators. At the
provincial synods of 1520 and 1522 the Polish hierarchy took no action
whatever regarding the new movement. The synod of 1523 did not go
beyond reaffirming Leo X’s bull, excommunicating Luther and condemning
his teaching, and repeating the king’s edicts which penalized the
innovators and the promoters of innovations. Instead of fighting the
new movement, the Polish clergy were ready to negotiate with the
Protestants and to make concessions. In fact, they went so far as to
lay before Pope Clemens VII in 1525, through a special envoy, the
Primate’s Chancellor Myszkowski, their hard lot, and to appeal to him
to call a general synod together for the purpose of bringing about a
restoration of church unity. The Pope, however, engaged at the time
in a conflict with the emperor, made only promises and exhorted the
Polish clergy to greater religious zeal, at the same time conferring on
the primate of Poland full powers to deal with the spreading heresy as
circumstances might demand, either to suppress the heresy or to absolve
the heretics.[81]
Complying with the Pope’s exhortation, the next provincial synod,
assembled at Łęczyca in 1527, adopted more definite and decided
measures to combat effectively the spread of the heretical movement.
It resolved that every bishop in the diocese appoint an Inquisitor,
selected either from the regular or from the secular clergy, who
would be on the lookout for heretics, and who would report them to
the bishop in order that they might be properly punished.[82] But the
synod did not stop with repressive measures. It realized the futility
of repression without effective prevention. Therefore, it further
resolved to improve the general intellectual character of the Polish
clergy. Every bishop was to seek out expert theologians and eloquent
preachers, who would be able to instruct the people and to expound to
them the Scriptures in a rational and intelligent way. These were to
be given appointments especially in places infected with heresy.[83]
And that the clergy might not lack for subjects to preach upon, every
clergyman was recommended to provide himself with the Scriptures, the
Church Fathers, Homilies, and other similar books.[84] Then, too, the
synod of that year was especially concerned about the atmosphere of
the king’s environment. It resolved that the king be requested to keep
a learned preacher at court, to hear him every holy day, and especially
during the sessions of the Diet. In this connection the bishop in whose
diocese the Diet met was charged to appoint such a preacher for the
king, in case the king failed to provide himself with one.[85] The next
two synods, of 1530 and of 1532, favored the use of stern measures
against the importation of heretical books and against the adherents of
heretical doctrines.[86]
But these synodical edicts were no more effective in checking the
spread of the Reformation in Poland than were the royal decrees.[87]
Instead of intimidating the adherents of the new religious movement,
they stimulated them to greater boldness. In 1534 at the provincial
diet of Grodzisk the nobility of Great Poland demanded books in the
Polish language, particularly the Bible. Every nation has writings in
its own language, it asserted; but as for us, the priests want us to be
ignorant.[88]
The steady growth of the religious reform movement in Poland led its
opponents to the employment of extreme repressive measures. In 1534 the
Polish clergy secured from the king an edict, forbidding the Polish
nobility to send its youth to any seat of learning known or suspected
to be heretical. Those that were at such universities were recalled.
If any refused to return, they were to be deprived of all rights
and privileges of citizenship. As was to be expected, the edict was
ignored. Hence, in 1540, in response to an appeal from the clergy, the
king issued a call on the starostas to enforce the aforesaid edict[89]
and on the bishops to report any violations of it in order that the
recalcitrant parties might be duly punished.[90] By a law of 1538,
owing to the tendency of Germans to take up with heretical ideas,
only native Poles were to be appointed to abbacies of Polish monastic
institutions.[91] Moreover, in 1541 the king went so far as to threaten
those receiving and harboring heretical ministers with the loss of all
nobility rights and privileges.[92] And to cap the climax, in 1539,
Peter Gamrat, bishop of Cracow, ordered Catherine Zalaszowska, an
eighty-year old lady, the wife of Melchior Zalaszowski, a member of the
Cracow City Council, to be burned, because of her opposition to the
adoration of the eucharistic host. The order was carried out, and the
old lady was executed.[93]
However, this execution of Catherine Zalaszowska by the ecclesiastical
authorities, and the threats of the king of 1540 and 1541, mark both
the climax of the opposition and the end of the first period of the
religious reform movement in Poland, the period of its early beginnings
and defensive struggles. From now on the movement assumes an aggressive
attitude.
_Second Period, 1540-1548: Growing Aggressiveness._--By 1540 German
Lutheranism in Poland became reenforced by Calvinism from Geneva.
This new form of the religious reform movement recommended itself
more favorably to the Poles because of its non-German origin, its
recognition of laymen in church councils, and because it was considered
more appropriate for a free republic.[94] Conversions to Calvinism
among the higher classes in Poland became now more and more frequent.
The relatives of the once famous Bishop and Cardinal Oleśnicki, the
Stadnickis, the Sienieńskis, the Firleys, the Jazłowieckis, the
Szafraniec family, and other aristocratic families of Little Poland
became adherents of Calvinism.[95] The Grand Hetman of Poland, Jan
Tarnowski, though not an avowed adherent of Calvinism, yet corresponded
with John Calvin,[96] and openly opposed ecclesiastical jurisdiction
and Rome’s influence.[97] And in 1539 Calvin dedicated his Commentary
on the Mass to the young Crown Prince, Sigismund Augustus.[98]
From now on the religious reform movement became the most important
topic of general discussion everywhere and among all intelligent
classes of Polish society. The abuses, faults, and shortcomings of the
church were being keenly felt and freely talked about. Questions of
faith, doctrine, and church dogmas were engaging everybody’s attention,
and were discussed on every occasion and at every opportunity. They
constituted the main topic of conversation, and sometimes of heated
discussion, at dinners, feasts, and social gatherings, particularly if
members of the clerical profession were present.[99]
This general interest of the intelligent classes of the Polish people
in the Reformation and the free discussion of the very fundamentals
on which the existing ecclesiastical system rested were creating a
great deal of uneasiness among the higher clergy, and caused them to
put forth still more determined efforts in defense of the old faith
and the old form of worship, not altogether from religious motives but
also from economic and social considerations. The new movement was
undermining their material resources as well as their social position
and influence.[100] Every effort must, therefore, be made and every
means employed to check this movement, if such a thing were possible.
Thus at the Synod of Piotrków in 1542 the clergy resolved to demand of
the king a strict enforcement of the royal edicts against heresy. It
resolved, also, to forbid parents to send their children to heretical
schools; to prohibit the reading of heretical books, which many were
doing under the pretense of trying to qualify themselves to refute the
heresy; to search homes for heretical writings; to enjoin the local
authorities to keep a close watch over the booksellers and printers;
to seize suspected works; and to punish all transgressors immediately
and without delay. The synod of 1544 reaffirmed the stand of the
church on these points, taken at the synod of 1542. All these decrees
remained largely ineffective, for they needed for their enforcement the
cooperation of civil authorities, which, however, could not now readily
be obtained, since all the royal edicts and the synodical decrees
against heresy violated constitutional rights granted the nobility in
the fifteenth century.[101] The synod of 1547 was, therefore, forced
to acknowledge the powerlessness of the church to cope with the new
movement, and to admit that in many dioceses of Poland even the clergy
were seriously affected by the spreading heresy, and that the church
was in imminent danger of being swamped by it.[102]
The futility of the decrees of the synod of 1542 becomes still more
apparent in the light of the stand of the Polish nobility at the Diet
of Cracow the following year. Open aggressiveness and sympathy with
the Reformation is here in evidence. The nobility demanded of the king
at this Diet and secured (1) the retention within the country for
purposes of defense against foreign aggression of the annates paid
to the Pope, and (2) the revocation of the unconstitutional edict of
1534, reaffirmed in 1540, forbidding Polish citizens to study, or to
educate their children abroad in universities infected with heresy. In
compliance with the urgent request of the senators and the deputies
the king agreed to send an embassy to the Pope with a petition, which
was more a notification than a request, that the annates be allowed
to be retained in the country; and should the Pope refuse to agree to
that, he was to be at once notified that the annates would not be
allowed to be given or exported from the country any more.[103] As
to the second point, the edicts forbidding Polish citizens to visit
certain places abroad were abrogated, and they were again given full
liberty to visit foreign countries for any purpose whatever, provided
they were not accompanied by a military retinue, or went to engage
in war. But, returning, they were not permitted to import heretical
books, or to disseminate among the common people doctrines not accepted
by the Roman Catholic Church. Whoever should be found guilty of this
offense, was to be prosecuted according to the laws of the kingdom
against heretics.[104] This measure reveals a recognition on the part
of the king of the impossibility of restraining anyone from personally
accepting the new teaching, particularly any of the nobility. The only
thing it seeks to guard against is the public dissemination of the new
teaching among the common people.
These significant gains stimulated the adherents to the Reformation
and its sympathizers to greater and more open activity. The new
movement, as has already been noted, had penetrated even into the royal
court, and had found followers among those nearest to the king. The
environment of the Crown Prince had been strongly saturated with the
new ideas, and every effort was made to win the young prince over to
the new cause. Two of his preachers began openly to denounce the abuses
of the church. They were John Koźmiński, known also as Cosminius, and
Lawrence Prasznicki, called also Prasnicius and Discordia. The latter
became very well known among the Protestants later on.[105] Their first
public attacks on the church and demands for reform were naturally of a
general character, and that enabled them to continue their activity at
court for some time.
At this time the Protestants began to appeal to the masses of the
nation through religious literature, published in the vernacular.
The works of Andrew Samuel appeared in the Polish language, and
other heretical books, likewise in the language of the people, were
freely imported and circulated. Moreover, there were now within the
country men who wrote in the spirit of the Reformation in Polish,
and had their writings printed. Nicholas Rey, the father of Polish
literature, published his first satirical work in 1543. It consisted
of a conversation, in which a gentleman, a bailiff, and a priest
participated, and in which the author severely rebuked the cupidity
of the clergy and the folly of the people for regarding their payment
of tithes as the essence of morality and religion and for relying on
that for their salvation, while at the same time he pointed out the
essential character of faith. The same year there appeared anonymously
from the press in Cracow the first Polish catechism published in
Poland, in which the new reform doctrines were taught, and which
contained also some of Rey’s verses. Other of Rey’s writings followed
in 1545, 1546, and 1549. In all of these the writer championed the new
doctrines, at first cautiously, but later quite frankly. In 1544 John
Seklucyan published his Confession of Faith, and somewhat later his
Polish translation of the four Gospels appeared[106] in Königsberg.
This new kind of appeal of the reformers to the people caused the
king to issue from Brześć in Lithuania, July 10, 1544, a threatening
mandate to the starostas, stirring them up to vigilance and to a strict
enforcement of the law. Whoever dared to import, sell, buy, possess, or
read such books was to be punished by death.[107]
This mandate was the last of the repressive measures issued by the
old king against the Reformation. Owing to his age and without doubt
also to a growing conviction of the futility of an attempt to stem the
tide of ideas and convictions, especially in the realm of religion, he
ceased to combat the movement with edicts and mandates. In this period
of relative quiet the reform forces gathered new strength and courage
for their great activity in the following reign.[108] This inactivity
on the part of the king gave rise to rumors among the opponents of the
Reformation that the king was favoring the spreading heresy. These
rumors were given color by the king’s Order to the Starostas, issued
in Cracow, August 9, 1546, to forbid Polish citizens in the king’s
name to take part on either side in the religious war which had broken
out in Germany at this time.[109] This order was issued by the king in
spite of the fact that Paul III, in a letter, dated July 3, 1546, had
urged Sigismund I to take an active part in that war on the side of the
forces defending the cause of the church.[110]
At this time too, the reform movement began to make an open breach
in the ranks of the Roman clergy. The first notable case was that of
John Łaski, known also as John a Lasco, a nephew of the famous Primate
of Poland of the same name. John Łaski had spent a number of years
in studies abroad, had come into personal touch with the reformers
of Wittenberg and Geneva, had accepted the Reformed faith, and in
1542 resigned his prebendary of Gnesen.[111] In 1541 Andrew Samuel, a
Dominican monk, brought to Posen by Bishop Branicki, a preacher at
Mary Magdalene’s Church and a very learned man and an eloquent speaker,
became a Protestant. In 1543 another Dominican monk, John Seklucyan,
through whose influence Samuel had been led to accept the new teaching
and to preach its doctrines openly, broke with the Church of Rome, and
became very active in developing a Polish Protestant literature under
the protection and with the aid of Duke Albert of East Prussia.[112] In
1544, again, Stanislaus Lutomirski, a parish priest of Konin, became a
Calvinist.[113] Lutomirski’s example led Felix Krzyżak, known also as
Cruciger, prebendary of Niedźwiedź, to embrace Calvinism in 1546, and
through his influence the magnate Stanislaus Stadnicki was induced to
do the same thing. In 1547 James Sylvius, prebendary of Chrzęcice, in
the possessions of the Filipowskis, also went over to Calvinism.[114]
Moreover, the close contact of the court clergy, in great degree
liberal in matters of religion, with the patriciate of the city of
Cracow, for years favorably disposed toward the new religious movement,
helped to promote the spread of the new doctrines. Beginning in 1545,
frequent secret meetings for purposes of religious and theological
discussions were held in the home of the nobleman John Trzycieski, in
which members of the upper social classes, the town patriciate, the
neighboring szlachta, the court clergy, the canons of the cathedral
chapter, and the king’s secretaries participated. Of the townspeople
we know the name of one, Wojewódka; of the szlachta, we know names of
Trzycieski, Karmiński, James Przyłuski, Filipowski; of the clergy,
Francis Lismanini, James Uchański, Zebrzydowski, Adam Drzewicki, and
Leonard Słonczewski. The last three became bishops later on, and
one of them, Uchański, archbishop and primate of Poland, a strong
advocate of a Polish National Church. The promoter and leader of these
secret meetings was Francis Lismanini, a Franciscan monk and private
confessor of the queen. It was chiefly he who procured and distributed
heretical books among the members of this select group, and spread the
new religious ideas among his monastic brethren. In these meetings
outside visitors, stopping temporarily in the city, also participated.
Imbued with the new spirit, the clerical visitors carried the new
doctrines wherever they went, and preached them to their hearers.[115]
Similar meetings were being held in Posen, of which Samuel and
Seklucyan were the product.[116]
The growing interest on the part of the people in the Reformation, the
aggressive character of the movement, and the increasing defections
among the clergy created consternation among the Polish bishops. These
high church dignitaries began now to feel that it was not safe any more
to rely on the lower clergy. The synod of 1547, therefore, charged the
bishops not to allow any priest to preach without a special permit
from the bishop of the given diocese. Bishops that were careless in
observing and enforcing this synodical ruling were to be fined 100
“grzywień.”[117]
_Third Period, 1548-1573: Triumph and Dominance._--As the Reformation
in Poland was steadily gathering strength and growing in influence,
King Sigismund I died on Easter Sunday, April 1, 1548, and was
succeeded by his son Sigismund Augustus, crowned since 1530 to succeed
his father as king of Poland. Sigismund Augustus was a truly religious
man, believing sincerely in the fundamentals of the Christian religion,
but indifferent to the forms in which they were to be expressed. He
adhered to the Church of Rome as the state church in which he had been
brought up and to whose forms of worship he had become accustomed. At
the same time he associated closely with Protestants, read Protestant
books, and took part in discussions on theological questions. Calvin,
as we have seen, had dedicated his Commentary on the Mass to him. Among
his closest and most intimate friends were Protestants like Nicholas
Radziwill the Black, grand hetman of Lithuania and brother-in-law of
the young king, and Francis Lismanini, at one time private confessor of
the king’s mother.[118]
It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the Roman See and the
Polish clergy were considerably apprehensive of the future of the
Catholic Church in Poland, while the Protestants, on the other hand,
looked forward with confidence, counting on the support of the young
king. Just as soon as the news of the death of the old king reached
the Pope, he at once dispatched to Poland a legate in the person
of the Abbot Hieronimus Martinengo to carry to the young king his
condolences, his congratulations, and his apostolic blessing, and to
secure from him assurances of his loyalty to the Church of Rome and of
his purpose to follow, in religious matters, in the footsteps of his
father. The nuncio arrived in Poland in August, 1548. The king received
him cordially, assured him of his respect for the Apostolic See, and
advising him not to wait for the meeting of the next Diet, dismissed
him.[119]
The Protestants, too, became now very active, preaching their doctrines
openly, and holding services on the estates and in the villages of the
szlachta. Their forces were strengthened by the arrival in Poland in
the summer of 1548 of the Bohemian Brethren. They had been expelled
from Bohemia and were on the way to East Prussia, where they were
offered the hospitality of Duke Albert. On their arrival in Posen, they
were cordially received by the Starosta-General of Great Poland, Andrew
Górka, castellan of Posen. During their stay in Posen they preached
publicly, and found many followers.[120] Ordered by the king, at the
request of Bishop Idźbieński of Posen, to move on, they left; but
their brief stay prepared the ground for future work, and established
connections which enabled them to return later on.[121]
Scarcely had the bishop of Posen freed the city of the Bohemian
Brethren, when he had a new case of heresy to deal with. The prebendary
of St. John’s, Andrew Prażmowski, began to preach Calvinistic doctrines
from the pulpit of his church. The bishop drove Prażmowski out of
his diocese. However, this did not stop Prażmowski’s activity as
a Calvinistic preacher. Finding refuge in Radziejów, Kuyavia, and
protected there by the powerful magnate, Raphael Leszczyński, voyvoda
of Brzezść and starosta of Radziejów, he prepared there the ground for
the spread of Calvinism, and laid the foundation for the establishment
of the Calvinistic Church in this voyvodship.[122] The same thing was
happening in Little Poland, where Lismanini, though now under the
ban of the bishop of Cracow, was nevertheless very active, spreading
Calvinistic doctrines. Catholic priests one after another began now
to leave the Church of Rome, to preach the Reformation doctrines,
and to reorganize their churches and the form of worship by doing
away with the mass and with pictures and by introducing the cup at
communion.[123] Moreover, the aristocracy openly encouraged the spread
of Protestantism in their possessions. Calvinistic churches sprang up
at Alexandrowice of the Karmińskis, at Chrzęcice of the Filipowskis,
at Pińczów of the Oleśnickis, and at Secynin of the Szafraniec
family.[124] Karmiński and Filipowski had been members of the secret
circle in Cracow, meeting for purposes of discussion of the new ideas.
At the Diet of Piotrków, 1547-1548, the szlachta had in the very first
article demanded the preaching of the pure word of God without any
human or Roman admixtures. All this, however, had been done rather
quietly as yet. But now at the very first Diet, called by the new king
to meet in Piotrków again in 1548, questions of religious reform were
brought boldly to the front. The szlachta demanded freedom to speak of
God freely in every place, which thing the clergy forbade. But when the
issue was raised in the Senate, the king replied that to speak of God
was the prerogative of the clergy, and that he would follow them.[125]
To such an extent had the reform movement spread, that it became
necessary for the Calvinists of Little Poland to establish a better
church organization. In effect they held the first synod in 1550 at
Pińczów, in the possessions of Nicholas Oleśnicki, a descendant of the
famous Bishop and Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki. Shortly thereafter they
appointed Felix Krzyżak (Cruciger) of Szczebrzeszyn as superintendent
of the Reformed Churches of Little Poland.[126] At the same time the
clergy of the Roman Church were becoming more and more restless.
Stanislaus Orzechowski, a canon of the cathedral chapter of Przemyśl
and a man of noble rank, came out with denunciations of the evils
of the church and with threats of marriage. Immediately a number of
priests, Martin of Opoczyn, Martin Krowicki, Valentine, prebendary of
Krzczonów, and others, proceeded to take wives unto themselves. In
spite of their marriages, some of them still held to their charges,
and argued for a married clergy.[127] Leonard Słończewski, who had
openly criticized the Pope and the clergy while preacher of St. Mary’s,
Cracow, now bishop of Kamieniec, preached against Peter’s primacy, the
celibacy of the clergy, and their loose moral lives.[128] Maciejowski,
bishop of Cracow, though by no means a supporter of the Reformation,
yet favored certain reforms, like the cup at communion and a married
clergy. Francis Stankar, professor of Hebrew in the University of
Cracow, propounded views of the Trinity which were contrary to those
held by the church. When charged with heresy and arrested by the
bishop, he escaped with the help of the neighboring szlachta, found
refuge at Dubieck in the possessions of the magnate Stanislaus
Stadnicki, established a school there with five teachers, and continued
to disseminate his ideas.[129]
This state of affairs stirred up the bishops to action. John Dziaduski,
bishop of Przemyśl, having previously warned Orzechowski, who had
married in spite of the warning, proceeded to try him along with
some of the other married priests; but fearing interference from the
szlachta, he condemned them in their absence without a hearing. Andrew
Zebrzydowski, bishop of Cracow, summoned Conrad Krupka to justice; and
when Krupka appeared accompanied by a number of friends, the bishop
refused to hear him, and condemned him as a heretic without a trial.
Orzechowski being a nobleman, his verdict had to be confirmed by the
king before it could be executed. The king confirmed the verdict, and
forwarded it to Kmita, starosta of Przemyśl for execution. Orzechowski
was to be deprived of honor, his possessions were to be confiscated,
and he was to be exiled. But Kmita, knowing the feeling of the szlachta
in this matter, would not execute the verdict.[130]
In the ecclesiastical attack on Orzechowski, the szlachta saw an attack
upon its own special privileges. When Orzechowski appealed his case to
the Diet in 1550, the Diet took it up readily. The matter created such
a commotion as to cause the Diet to break up without any results.[131]
Instead of taking due warning, the bishops proceeded to exercise
their authority in a still more high-handed way. In 1551 the bishop
of Przemyśl condemned the magnate Stanislaus Stadnicki for protecting
heretics. He did this in Stadnicki’s absence, without a trial, and
against the protests of Stadnicki’s attorney. The Primate of Poland,
Dzierzgowski, archbishop of Gnesen, showed his zeal by condemning
as heretics Christopher Lasocki and James Ostrorog, two of the most
powerful and distinguished magnates of Great Poland. In all these cases
the bishops did not fail to declare distinctly that all the property
of a condemned heretic was subject to confiscation.[132] The Polish
szlachta, regardless of religious affiliation or sympathies, rose
almost to a man in most indignant protests against such high-handed
usurpation of power on the part of the hierarchy and against such
brutal attacks upon their most fundamental rights. At the provincial
diets in the fall of that year, at which delegates were chosen to the
next Diet, the szlachta voiced their indignation against the clergy,
and instructed the chosen deputies to the Diet of 1552 to protest
against ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to demand its abolition.[133]
The Diet of 1552 met at Piotrków toward the end of January. The
Chamber of Deputies elected as its president Raphael Leszczyński,
starosta of Radziejów, an avowed Calvinist, who during the mass at the
opening of the Diet stood in the church with his head covered. He was
the chief spokesman of the injured and aggrieved szlachta. When the
Chancellor had finished reading the appeal from the throne to consider
problems of defense, Leszczyński rose in the name of the Chamber and
the szlachta, stating that the Chamber would take no action on any
matter until the grievances of the szlachta, arising from the abuse
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were removed. In this attitude the
Protestants were supported even by loyal Catholics. In the ensuing
debate the bishops were left without any support. The secular senators,
among whom were several very influential Protestants, sided with the
Chamber of Deputies. The leaders of the opposition to ecclesiastical
jurisdiction were: in the Senate, John Tarnowski, castellan of Cracow
and grand hetman of Poland, a loyal Catholic; in the Chamber, Raphael
Leszczyński, starosta of Radziejów and president of the Chamber, an
ardent Calvinist.[134] The struggle resulted in the suspension of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a year, the szlachta agreeing to pay
the customary tithes, the payment of which had in many instances
already been stopped.[135]
From 1552 to 1565 the Protestants dominated all the Diets, electing
invariably a Protestant as president of the Chamber of Deputies.
The united opposition of the Polish szlachta to the Polish clergy in
1552, the election of an avowed Protestant to the presidency of the
Chamber in that year, and the actual, even though temporary, suspension
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,--all this had a most stimulating
affect on the religious reform movement in Poland. Felix Krzyżak and
Francis Stankar, who had fled to Great Poland from the persecution
of Bishop Zebrzydowski in 1551 and had found protection at Ostrorog
in the possessions of Stanislaus and James Ostrorog, returned now to
resume their work in Little Poland.[136] For this they were now all the
better qualified as a result of their acquaintance with the work of
the Bohemian Brethren in Great Poland. They began to hold conferences
and synods, thereby stimulating the interest and enthusiasm of the
Protestants in the reform movement. The Protestant nobles, having the
right of recommending candidates for vacant churches within their
possessions, made now direct appointments of men sympathetic with the
reform movement. In this way into many of the churches the new form
of worship was introduced. At the same time many of the nobles began
seriously to question the fundamental right of the clergy to tithes,
and stopped payment, even though they had agreed in 1552 to continue
this practice.[137] They took these bold steps, believing that the
young king was with them. They drew that inference from the king’s
close intimacy with Lismanini, who was now an avowed Calvinist, and
with others equally well known for their heretical sympathies and
contacts.[138]
This growing boldness and aggressiveness of the Protestants provoked
the clergy to renewed defensive and offensive activity. At the synod of
Piotrków in 1554 the clergy were seriously inclined toward conciliatory
measures, and after a long debate, finally resolved to invite the
dissidents and schismatics to the next synod in an effort to reconcile
them with the Mother Church.[139] But they did not stop with that. They
further resolved to appeal to the Pope for help; they requested the
Vatican to send special legates to Poland to assist the Polish clergy
in their struggle against the spreading heresy, and since the agreement
of 1552 was now expired, they began to make fresh use of their
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The first one to set the example again
was the archbishop of Gnesen, Dzierzgowski, and his first condemnatory
verdict fell on Stanislaus Lutomirski, who had left the Church of Rome
twelve years before by accepting Calvinism. Here was another clergyman
of noble rank condemned by an ecclesiastical tribunal as a heretic, and
thus deprived of honor, property, and country. The next one to exercise
his jurisdiction was the bishop of Posen, Czarnkowski, who rendered
verdicts of heresy against several citizens of that city. Dziaduski,
bishop of Przemyśl, continued persecuting heretical preachers in his
diocese. These episcopal condemnations, however, were of no effect;
for the condemned persons always found protection in the possessions
of some powerful magnate, in whose territory only his own jurisdiction
prevailed. In consequence of this the bishops resorted sometimes to
violence in order to execute their verdicts, though not necessarily
with more success. Bishop Zebrzydowski of Cracow, for instance,
summoned before his episcopal tribunal Martin Krowicki, who having
become a Calvinist, married, left the priesthood, and was residing at
Pinczów, in the possessions of Stanislaus Oleśnicki. When Krowicki
did not appear, the bishop condemned him without a trial, and planned
to seize him by strategy. Krowicki was taken violently, thrown into
a wagon, and carried away to the bishop’s prison. But when Oleśnicki
was informed of what had happened, he set out in pursuit of Krowicki’s
captors, overtook them, drove them away, and rescued the victim.[140]
While the bishops were vainly prosecuting and persecuting the
heretics, the Protestants were steadily strengthening their ranks
by perfecting their organization and by effecting a very important
union of the Calvinists with the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland.
During his temporary retreat in Great Poland in 1551, caused by
Bishop Zebrzydowski’s persecution, Felix Krzyżak, superintendent of
the Calvinistic churches of Little Poland, became acquainted with the
Bohemian Brethren there, and invited them to unite with the Calvinists
of Little Poland. After two preliminary conferences between the
representatives of both groups, one held in Little Poland at Chrzęcice,
in the possessions of Filipowski, and another in Great Poland at
Gołuchow, in the possessions of Raphael Leszczyński, a Protestant
synod was called together to meet at Koźminek, near Kalisz, in August,
1555, at which time a union between the two above mentioned bodies was
effected. The basis of agreement was that each body retain its separate
organization and its form of worship, while both were to work toward
gradual uniformity in both respects.[141]
The growth of Protestanism and the development of opposition had
made the religious question exceedingly acute, and placed it at the
Diet of 1555 in the very forefront of problems calling for immediate
settlement. The importance of this question was fully recognized by
the king himself, who had placed it among the matters to be discussed.
Encouraged by the gains made at the Diet of 1552 and provoked by
the high-handed repressive measures employed by the bishops, the
Protestants planned to make a still more determined stand at this Diet
against ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. At the provincial diets they
chose, therefore, some of the most powerful magnates and most ardent
Protestants, like Leszczyński, Ostrorog, and Marszewski of Great
Poland, and Ossoliński, Siennicki, and others of Little Poland, as
deputies of the Chamber.[142] The bishops, realizing the seriousness
of the impending conflict, came out in force, and were ready to make
concessions, if need be.[143] The Diet, called for the 22nd of April,
1555, met in first session on the 28th. As could have been expected,
the Chamber again chose a Protestant for its president in the person of
Nicholas Siennicki. In his speech of welcome to the king on behalf of
the Chamber the next day, Siennicki stated the wishes of the szlachta.
In brief, they wanted the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and
full religious liberty. A project of adjustment was, therefore, worked
out, having the full approval of the king and the secular members of
the Senate, providing: (1) that everyone be at liberty to keep at home
or at his church such clergymen as preached the pure Word of God; (2)
that these be free to follow their own ritual and ceremonies; (3)
that those wishing it be allowed to have the communion administered
in both kinds; (4) that priests deprived of their benefices have them
restored for the length of their lives, whereupon the lords were to be
free to choose such priests as they might wish, or, where the former
incumbent was already dead, the nobles could do as they pleased; (5)
that all episcopal judgments in religious matters against whomsoever
issued be declared null and void; (6) that the clergy be free to
marry; (7) that all the clergy, whatever their rank, be declared
entitled to their former incomes, according to old customs; (8) that
blasphemy against the Trinity and the Eucharist as celebrated by the
Roman Church, attacks upon the form of worship of that church, and
forcible conversions of Catholics be prohibited; and (9) that all these
provisions have the approval and guaranty of the king and be made
binding until the restoration of universal peace either by a national
or a provincial synod.[144]
By this document Protestanism in Poland would have been placed on
a basis of full equality with the Roman faith. But when this bill
was presented to the bishops, they promptly rejected it. Thereupon
new plans of adjustment were worked out one after another only to
be rejected by the bishops. Finally, it was resolved that the king
call together on his own authority, at a time most convenient in his
judgment, a synod at which the king himself with his council of state
should be present. Until then peace should be preserved in the country;
ecclesiastical jurisdiction against whomsoever was to be suspended; the
execution of all pending ecclesiastical judgments was to be abandoned;
and people were to refrain from all blasphemies and disturbances
growing out of religious differences.[145] The bishops, however,
remained inflexible; they would not yield an inch in spite of the fact
that they had considered making concessions. They protested against
the suspension of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and through the
archdeacon of Kalisz, Francis Krasiński, appealed to the Pope for
counsel and for help.[146]
Nevertheless, in spite of the bishops’ protests, the decision of the
Diet prevailed and remained in force. By it ecclesiastical jurisdiction
became suspended until the meeting of a National Synod to be called
together at a convenient time by the king, and Protestantism was for
the time being legally recognized, receiving full freedom of worship
and the legal right to all the church property already in the hands of
Protestants. It was not as much as the Protestants had hoped to gain;
nevertheless it was a considerable advance and a marked victory for
them.
In accordance with his agreement to call a National Synod together
to settle the existing religious differences, the king took steps to
secure the Pope’s sanction of this move and of several contemplated
reforms. He sent Stanislaus Maciejowski, castellan of Sandomir and
crown court marshal, to Rome with congratulations to the new Pope, Paul
IV, and with the request for his sanction of the following proposed
reforms:
1. The mass and all church services to be held in the Polish language;
2. Communion in both kinds;
3. A married clergy; and
4. The calling of a National Synod to settle the existing religious
differences and troubles.
The Pope was astonished at the request, and refused to sanction the
suggested reforms absolutely. To the fourth point he acceded, but never
really intended to keep his promise.[147]
The nature of the proceedings and the decisions of the Diet of 1555
and the proposed religious reforms for which the Polish king asked
papal sanction caused the Apostolic See a good deal of concern, and
led the Vatican to send at once Louis Alois Lippomano, bishop of
Verona, as special legate to Poland. From this time on the Apostolic
See kept a special envoy in Poland constantly to watch the course of
events. Lippomano was a man without tact, and not at all particular
in his choice of means to accomplish his objects. His reputation had
preceded him, and his arrival in Poland in October, 1555, stirred up
the Protestant element in the population to great indignation. The king
received him cordially. But owing to his lack of tact, Lippomano soon
lost the king’s favor, and won the ill-will even of good Catholics.[148]
To mend matters, the legate started to exert his influence first on
those nearest to the king. He wrote a letter to Nicholas Radziwill the
Black, palatine, chancellor, and grand marshal of Lithuania, the most
powerful magnate in the Grand Duchy, an ardent Calvinist, whose zeal
contributed greatly to the spread of Protestantism in Poland as well
as in the Grand Duchy. In this letter Lippomano endeavored to win and
convert Radziwill to the Church of Rome. Radziwill, however, could not
be won back to the Roman Church. He replied, exposing the unfavorable
character of the Catholic clergy, and let this correspondence be
published. The publication of this correspondence made Lippomano still
more unpopular in Poland, and changed completely whatever friendly
attitude the king may have had toward him.[149]
Having failed at court, Lippomano turned now to the bishops to arouse
their loyalty and to rekindle their zeal. But here, too, he failed to
meet with better success. Many of the bishops were ready to capitulate
and to negotiate with the szlachta in order to save their bishoprics
and their incomes. Some of them, like Drohojowski, bishop of Kuyavia,
and Uchański, bishop of Chełm, were actually favorably disposed
toward the reform movement. Others, again, like Zebrzydowski, bishop
of Cracow, owing to past association with the reformers, were under
constant suspicion. The only men among the Polish hierarchy upon whom
the nuncio could rely were the Primate of Poland, Dzierzgowski, and
the bishop of Warmya, Hosius; and of these two the primate had to be
largely discounted as he had neither the learning nor the ability to be
of any help in such a difficult situation. The legate had, therefore,
no easy sailing to find support for his plans among the Polish bishops,
or to keep them from associating with heretics.[150]
Seeing the fruitlessness of his efforts among the bishops, he turned
to the lower clergy, visiting churches, holding conferences with the
members of the cathedral chapters and the parish priests. Here he met
with better response and greater success. He discovered that the lower
clergy were both more loyal and more concerned about the real needs of
the church and the remedies to correct existing evils.[151]
In this connection it is of interest to note the independence of the
Polish bishops as regards their attitude toward Rome. A provincial
synod under the presidency of the papal nuncio was called to meet at
Łowicz on September 6, 1556. The Polish bishops wanted to confer _in
corpore_, without the presence of the nuncio, and then to present to
him the results of their conference and to get his opinion. The Polish
bishops were opposed to permitting the nuncio to exert undue influence
on their deliberations, and in this attitude they were supported even
by Hosius, the one Polish prelate upon whom the nuncio counted most.
The nuncio, however, would not consent to any such procedure in the
deliberations. The disagreement became so acute that Bishop Hosius had
to act as mediator between his colleagues and the legate. Since the
latter would not yield, the bishops finally agreed to confer together
in his presence.[152]
If the results of the Diet of 1555 made the Apostolic See vigilant
as regards Poland, it is not to be wondered at; for such vigilance
was imperative. The Protestants were now more active than ever. The
Calvinists of Little Poland energetically developed their work in all
the churches occupied by them before the Diet of 1555 and acknowledged
by the Diet as theirs in the royal cities, particularly Cracow and
Posen, and even in the territories of the royal domain wherever
Protestants were found. They founded schools at Pińczów, Secynin, and
Koźminek. They were holding frequent synods, and were strengthening
and perfecting their internal organization.[153] If the Calvinists of
Little Poland were active, so were also the Bohemian Brethren of Great
Poland. The number of their followers increased to such an extent
that by 1557 a separate senior or superintendent for Great Poland was
appointed by the central administrative authority in Moravia.[154]
Moreover, to counteract Lippomano’s activity, the Polish Protestants
invited to Poland two distinguished reformers, Francis Lismanini and
John Łaski. Both of these arrived in the country toward the end of
1556. The first, being a foreigner, the Catholics succeeded in having
banished from the country by order of the king, though not until after
a good deal of effort.[155] The second, however, being a distinguished
native, could not be banished. So he stayed, and worked faithfully,
though fruitlessly, for a union of the Lutherans with the other two
already united Protestant bodies, the Calvinists of Little Poland and
the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland.[156]
When the new Diet, called for November 25, 1556, assembled in Warsaw,
the Protestants were well represented in it. They came out in full
force to counterbalance the presence and any possible influence of
the papal nuncio on the deliberations of the Diet. The king, being in
need of money for a war which was threatening with the Knights of the
Sword, had to court the favor of the Chamber in order to get it to vote
the necessary contributions for the conduct of the war. The pressing
problems before the new Diet were, then, those of defense and of
religion. According to the rescript of the preceding Diet, the problem
of “egzekucji praw,” or of the execution of laws, a matter similar to
the English “quo warranto,” which had come up for consideration at that
time and had been postponed until the next Diet, was to be taken up and
considered first. However, it was decided to lay this problem aside
again until a more opportune time, owing to the more pressing question
of adequate finances for the conduct of the coming war. The Chamber
was ready to vote the necessary contribution, on condition, however,
of a satisfactory settlement of the existing religious differences.
Thus the religious question again became the most important, and on
its solution depended the success of any program for a proper defense
of the country.[157] But no satisfactory solution of the religious
problem was in sight. The Chamber, therefore, proposed that, in case
a better adjustment of the religious differences was impossible at
this time, the decisions of 1555 be continued in force and be more
strictly observed. The spiritual lords were most reluctant to give
their assent to this proposal. The Chamber, again, threatened that
it would not otherwise vote the necessary funds for the conduct of
the war. Hence, the king issued an edict, dated January 13, 1557,
continuing the religious settlement of 1555 in force during his absence
from the country, with the added provision that should anyone in any
way violate those decisions, the king would regard such violations as
an offense against his person and against his government, would judge
the offenders in the king’s courts, and would punish them according to
law.[158] Thereupon the Chamber voted the needed contribution.
By this edict the king hoped to placate both of the contending
parties. As it happened, the edict did not really satisfy either
party. Consequently it was never made public, was not enforced, and
was finally recalled. However, if it had been made public, and if
it had been enforced, it would have done away with ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; for from now on cases of heresy, being regarded as an
offense against the king’s person, would have been adjudicated in the
king’s courts rather than by ecclesiastical tribunals.[159]
In consequence of this turn of events at the Diet of 1556-1557, the
papal legate, Lippomano, immediately left Poland for Rome. There he
complained of the lack of religious fervor and zeal on the part of
the Polish hierarchy, attributing to their religious indifference the
vigorous growth of Protestantism in Poland, and of the king that he
was permitting everyone to believe and to worship as he pleased.[160]
His complaint of the Polish bishops was not altogether groundless. How
little they apparently cared for the spiritual welfare of the church is
shown by their attendance at the synod of 1557, which met at Piotrków
on May 17. Besides the archbishop of Gnesen, there were present two
bishops only, Zebrzydowski, bishop of Cracow, and Uchański, bishop of
Chełm. The other bishops were represented by their delegates. Moreover,
one of the bishops present, Uchański, asked his colleagues to vote at
the next Diet for the introduction into the Polish church of communion
of both kinds. But the delegates of the cathedral chapters opposed
this suggested innovation most decidedly, and turned it down.[161]
Meanwhile the Reformation was making steady progress, not only in the
possessions of the szlachta, but also in cities and among government
officials. And owing to the fact that Protestants were now found among
senators, starostas, royal court officials, and among the king’s most
intimate friends, punishment of heretics was becoming increasingly more
difficult.[162] In Little Poland the Calvinistic churches had become
so numerous that for administrative purposes they were divided in 1560
into districts, over which superintendents were appointed both clerical
and lay,--clerical, to care for the spiritual welfare of the churches,
and lay, for the administration of temporal affairs. At the joint synod
of the Calvinists and the Bohemian Brethren at Włodzisław, on June
15, 1557, on motion of the distinguished reformer John Łaski, it was
decided that steps be taken to effect a union with the Lutherans, such
as had previously been effected between the Calvinists of Little Poland
and the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland.[163]
At the Diet of 1558-1559, called at Piotrków for November 20, 1558,
the Protestants were again in full control, and for president of the
Chamber of Deputies they again elected Nicholas Siennicki, who presided
over its deliberations in 1555. The foremost problem before the
present Diet was “the execution of laws,” and, of course, inseparably
connected with it was that of religion. Growing out of these, there
were the further problems of the exemption from military service of the
mayors of ecclesiastical villages, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
the participation of the clergy in royal elections. Bishop Uchański
moved in the Senate that problems of religion be set aside until the
calling of a national synod, in which both the clergy and the laity
would be free to participate. He argued that only such an assembly so
composed and gathered for that particular purpose would be able to
adjust the troublesome religious differences. The Chamber was willing
to set matters of religion aside until a national synod could be called
together, but on condition that ecclesiastical jurisdiction, not only
in matters of religion, but in all matters, with all cases pending, be
suspended. Knowing the seriousness of the situation, yet very reluctant
to surrender their jurisdiction, the bishops pledged themselves to use
it with utmost care. But the new papal legate, Kamill, bishop of Sutri,
refused to countenance any idea of calling a national synod, to which,
besides the Roman clergy, the laity and the heretics would be admitted.
The Chamber, on the other hand, was equally determined to do away and
for good with ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all matters.[164]
Next, in connection with the larger problem of the execution of laws,
the Chamber questioned the legality of the exemption from military
service of the mayors of ecclesiastical villages. It was found that
according to the Code of Casimir the Great the mayors of ecclesiastical
villages were required to render military service. The Diets of 1538
and of 1550 confirmed the old law, requiring compliance with its
provisions, unless the clergy produced documentary evidence of special
privileges of exemption for such cases. The Chamber of 1558, therefore,
demanded that the clergy produce the documentary privileges they
claimed to possess,[165] but the evidence was not forthcoming.
Thereupon a still more serious question was raised, namely, that
concerning the clergy’s participation in royal elections. Since the
bishops were ever appealing to canonical law rather than to the law of
the land, and since they regarded the interests of the Church of Rome
and their loyalty to the Pope of greater importance than the interests
of the country and their loyalty to the Polish king, the Chamber
through its spokesman, Hieronimus Ossoliński, a Protestant, argued in
the Senate in the king’s presence that from such a weighty matter as
the election of a Polish king the bishops, whose allegiance is divided,
should be excluded.[166]
This proposal capped the climax. It now became fully evident to all
that the difficulties had become practically insurmountable, and
instead of diminishing they were constantly increasing. The king
proposed, therefore, a dissolution of the Diet. His proposal, being
acceptable to all parties, was put in effect February 8, 1559.
At this Diet the Protestants had been in indisputable control, and
in their struggle with the hierarchy had made considerable advance.
They had demanded the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the
appeal to canonical law, not only in questions of religion, but in all
other matters. They had proved that mayors of ecclesiastical villages
were subject to military service in time of need, and not exempt from
it as the clergy claimed. They had raised the question of the right of
the bishops, as representatives of a foreign potentate, to participate
in the elections of the Polish king.
In the face of the growing strength and aggressiveness of Protestanism,
it is interesting to note the policy of the Catholic Church toward
the state, toward its own clergy, and toward Protestanism, as that
policy is revealed in the decisions of the synod of 1561. The Polish
Catholic clergy fully realized by this time the precarious position of
the Catholic Church in Poland, and decided upon conciliatory measures.
To show the king their loyalty and generosity, they agreed to make
a liberal contribution, 60,000 thalers, to the king’s treasury for
purposes of defense. To win the people back to the Mother Church,
they resolved on reforms in the life of the Polish episcopate and
the abandonment of the persecution of Protestants. The bishops were
urged to live more simply, to give more personal attention to the
administration of their dioceses, to establish schools, to assist
in the education of the sons of the poorer gentry by providing free
maintenance for them at their episcopal courts. To reclaim the
Protestants, they resolved now to treat them kindly.[167] Even the
Vatican adopted a conciliatory attitude toward the Polish government
by immediately confirming the king’s appointment to the archbishopric
of Gnesen in 1562 of Bishop Uchański, who for years had been a
suspected heretic and a persona non grata to the Holy See.[168]
Nevertheless, whenever their incomes were at stake, the Polish bishops
were still quick to resort to their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
to excommunicate those failing to pay their tithes according to the
agreement at the Diet of 1555. If the excommunicated person remained
under the ban for a year without an effort to have it lifted, his
property was to be seized and confiscated. The execution of such
episcopal decrees was not easy; for the civil authorities declined
to act. And even if there were officials who tried to execute such
decrees, they found the task was altogether too difficult to perform.
For instance, Lasocki, a well known Arian Protestant, failing to pay
his tithes to the cathedral chapter of Cracow, was excommunicated.
After a year Chancellor Ocieski, who was at the same time starosta
of Cracow, ordered his possessions seized. The Protestant nobility,
aroused by this order, came armed, one thousand men strong, to Cracow
on May 14, 1561, and refused to allow the seizure of Lasocki’s
estate.[169]
This and other similar cases determined the course of action of the
Protestant nobility at the Diet of Piotrków, 1562-1563. The Protestants
were well represented, and again elected one of their number, Raphael
Leszczyński, as president of the Chamber. They protested now, not only
against ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters of heresy and tithing,
but also against the edicts issued against heresy by Sigismund I.[170]
They appealed to their special privileges received at Czerwińsk in
1422 and at Jedlnia in 1430, guaranteeing them freedom of person
and inviolability of property rights, and to the constitution of
the Diet of Radom, 1505, which made the royal edicts against heresy
unconstitutional. For that constitution, known as “Nihil novi,”
explicitly declared that no new fundamental law could be passed without
the common consent of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.[171]
In these matters the Chamber again had the full support of all the
temporal peers in the Senate, regardless of creed. As a result of these
protests the king issued instructions to the starostas to respect the
constitutionally guaranteed privileges of the szlachta. By this act all
the edicts against heresy were practically annulled and the execution
of judgments of ecclesiastical courts, whether in cases of heresy or in
case of failure to pay tithes, was made impossible.
At the next Diet, assembled in Warsaw toward the end of November, 1563,
the clergy made a show of presenting their privileges, exempting the
mayors of their villages from military service, with the declaration
that they were doing it “ad informationem” and not “ad judicum.” The
indefiniteness of the documents was apparent. But the Chamber, though
predominantly Protestant again with Nicholas Siennicki presiding,
was inclined to be conciliatory. It agreed that the clergy should
enjoy personal exemption from the so-called “pospolite ruszenie,”
or general rising in arms, but it did express the feeling that they
should share in the burdens of defense by money contributions. After
several consultations with the papal legate, the clergy declared their
willingness to make a substantial contribution to the country’s defense
at this time, but could not obligate themselves regarding the future;
and that they would do this on condition that the law passed at the
last Diet virtually doing away with ecclesiastical jurisdiction be
repealed and that the Edict of Warsaw of 1557, which had then been
expressly recalled by the king as unconstitutional, be enforced. These
reservations and conditions were not acceptable. And when the bishops
refused to recede from the position they had taken, the king signed a
manifesto, imposing a tax of 20 groszen per łan, or 20 groats per hide
of land, of which 10 groszen were to come from the tithes.[172] This
evoked a veritable furor among the bishops. But it was useless. The
king was firm; and from now on to the end of his reign whenever a tax
was imposed for purposes of defense, the same proportion was to come
from the tithes.[173]
The notable victories achieved by the Protestants over the Roman
clergy at the last two Diets opened the way wide to the spread of the
Reformation. They also encouraged the szlachta to go still farther in
their efforts to emancipate themselves from the power of the clergy.
With ecclesiastical jurisdiction practically abolished, the szlachta
began now to question the legitimacy of tithes. They were led to
this by the insistence of the clergy that the tithes be paid, and by
continuing to summon before their courts those who failed to do so
and even the starostas who, in compliance with the law of the Diet
of 1562-1563, refused to execute the verdicts of their courts. When,
therefore, the Diet of 1565 assembled at Piotrków on January 18, the
Chamber under the presidency of Nicholas Siennicki wanted to know the
ground on which the szlachta was required to pay the tithes and the
purposes for which the clergy were using them. And since the clergy was
unwilling to share the burden of the country’s defense, the szlachta
was disinclined to pay the tithes.[174] The Deputies complained also
about the summons served by episcopal courts on the szlachta for
non-payment of tithes and on the starostas for refusing to execute
episcopal decrees; whereupon the king sanctioned a law making all such
summons null and void.[175] This was the last blow administered to the
effectiveness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and as a result of it the
victory of the Protestants was complete.
An idea of the relative strength and influence of Protestantism at
this time may be gained from the composition of the Senate in the Diet
of 1569, the number of Protestant parishes in the realm, and from a
complaint of Peter Skarga, the greatest Jesuit preacher in Poland at
the close of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th century. The total
number of senatorial seats in the Diet of 1569 was 133. Of these 70
were occupied by Catholics, 15 of whom were bishops, 58 by Protestant
dignitaries, 2 by Greek Orthodox senators, and 3 were vacant. Of the
total number of senators the Protestants came close to having one-half,
and, exclusive of the Catholic bishops, the Protestants outnumbered
the Catholic temporal peers by three.[176] The number of Protestant
parishes in Poland toward the close of the 16th century, according to
Professor Henry Merczyng’s researches and calculations, was about 600,
or one-sixth of the total number of Roman Catholic parishes in Poland
including Lithuania. The same relative proportion existed between the
Protestant and the Catholic szlachta of Poland at this time.[177]
That this estimate of Professor Merczyng’s of Protestant strength
in Poland at this time is very conservative can be seen from Peter
Skarga’s complaint, made at the close of the 16th century, that two
thousand Romanist churches had been converted into Protestant places of
worship.[178]
To make their strength felt still more politically, the Protestants,
including the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Bohemian Brethren,
entered into a certain form of union at Sandomir, April 14, 1570, known
as _Consensus Sandomiriensis_. By this agreement, while each body
retained its organization and form of worship, the three Protestant
bodies pledged themselves to preserve peace and harmony among
themselves and to act together politically.[179] Due to the political
strength of the Protestants, the Polish szlachta entered during the
interregnum after the death of Sigismund Augustus into a Pact of
Confederation at Warsaw in 1573, by which religious toleration and
equality were legally established in the realm, and had to be sworn
to by every newly elected king.[180] This marked the climax in the
development of the Reformation in Poland.
The causes of this remarkable development of the Reformation
movement in Poland were not only political, as previous studies have
sufficiently established, but also social and economic. To show this is
the purpose of the present study.
[1] Walerjan Krasiński, Zarys dziejów Reformacji w
Polsce, Warsaw, 1903, vol. i, p. 26; Wł. Smoleński.
Dzieje narodu polskiego, Warsaw, 1904, p. 21.
[2] Smoleński, pp. 30-31; Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 29-30.
[3] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 31.
[4] Ibid., vol. i, pp. 31-32.
[5] Smoleński, pp. 41-42.
[6] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 34.
[7] Smoleński, p. 31.
[8] An interesting and detailed account of this incident
is given by Stanislaus Smolka in his Szkice
historyczne, Warsaw, 1883, pp. 259-281. See also
Eugene Starczewski, Możnowładztwo polskie, Warsaw,
1914, pp. 114-115.
[9] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 34-36.
[10] Smoleński, pp. 25-26.
[11] Ibid., p. 31; Krasiński, vol. i, p. 30.
[12] Smoleński, p. 31; Krasiński, vol. i, p. 37.
[13] Starczewski, p. 72.
[14] Vincent Zakrzewski, Powstanie i wzrost Ref. w Polsce,
Leipzig, 1870, p. 112. When the Roman Inquisition
called Uchański to appear before it to give account
of himself and to be tried as a heretic, he refused
to do so, protesting against being called a heretic
before a previous trial (see Zakrzewski, p. 140).
[15] Zakrzewski, pp. 179-180.
[16] Smoleński, p. 19.
[17] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 32.
[18] Smoleński, p. 93.
[19] T. Grabowski, Literatura luterska, Posen, 1920, p.
13. Many of the Polish bishops were great admirers of
Erasmus, and they constituted, says Grabowski, the
vanguard of the reformers.
[20] See E. H. Lewinski-Corwin, The Political History of
Poland, N. Y. 1917, p. 138; Smoleński, pp. 80-81.
[21] Lewinski-Corwin, p. 138.
[22] Antoni Lorkiewicz, Bunt Gdański Roku 1525, Lemberg,
1881, p. 7.
[23] Lewinski-Corwin, p. 137.
[24] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 37-38.
[25] Artur Górski, Ku czemu Polska szła, 2nd Ed., Warsaw,
1919, p. 55.
[26] August Sokołowski, Dzieje Polski. Wiedeń, 1904, vol.
ii, p. 250.
[27] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 38.
[28] Grabowski, p. 6.
[29] “Cantilena vulgaris de Wikleph.” See Piotr
Chmielowski, Historja literatury polskiej, vol. i,
pp. 77-78.
[30] Ibid., vol. i, p. 78.
[31] The Bohemians or Czechs fought together with the
Poles against the Order of Teutonic Knights, and
twice offered the Bohemian crown to the Polish King,
Wladislaus Jagiello. The Poles and the Lithuanians
had separate colleges of their own at the University
of Prague, established by Queen Hedwig, and Polish
youth resorted to that University in large numbers.
Huss corresponded with King Jagiello, and his close
associate, Hieronim of Prague, spent some time in
Poland, spreading his master’s ideas.
[32] Smoleński, p. 75.
[33] Zakrzewski, pp. 19-20.
[34] Smoleński, p. 75.
[35] This violated fundamental constitutional rights
granted the “szlachta” at Czerwińsk in 1422, and
therefore could not possibly be enforced. See
Appendix, No. 14. The term szlachta denotes in its
narrow meaning the gentry, in its large and general
meaning the Polish nobility as a whole.
[36] Volumina legum, vol. i, p. 38, folio 85. For text see
Appendix, No. 1.
[37] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 50-51.
[38] The starostas were royal administrators and judicial
officials similar to the Frankish counts.
[39] Volumina legum, vol. i, fol. 193 ff. See Appendix,
No. 2.
[40] Ibid., vol. i, fol. 140; Zakrzewski, p. 18. See
Appendix, No. 3.
[41] Ibid., fol. 141; ibid., pp. 18-19.
[42] Raczyński, Codex diplomaticus Majoris Poloniae, p.
172 ff.; Zakrzewski, p. 20.
[43] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 54-55.
[44] Górski, p. 117.
[45] Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 66-70; Grabowski, p. 6.
[46] Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 70-71.
[47] Lorkiewicz, p. 97; Górski, p. 56.
[48] Lorkiewicz, pp. 32-33.
[49] Ibid., pp. 40-41, 43, 68.
[50] Ibid., pp. 50-51, 58-59.
[51] Ibid., pp. 43, 68.
[52] Ibid., pp. 58-60.
[53] Ibid., pp. 58-75.
[54] Smoleński, p. 94.
[55] Lorkiewicz, pp. 119-148.
[56] Ibid., pp. 153-155.
[57] Ibid., pp. 154-155; Krasiński, vol. i, 81-82.
[58] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 80-81.
[59] Balzer, Corpus Juris Polonici, vol. iii, pp.
579, 584. Original in Acta Tomiciana, vol. v,
fol. 284, ff., and in Friese, Beiträge zur
Reformationsgeschichte in Polen, vol. ii, No. 1, p.
36. See Appendix, No. 4.
[60] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 81.
[61] Ibid., vol. i, p. 81.
[62] R. N. Bain, Slavonic Europe, Cambridge, 1908, pp.
24-25.
[63] Ibid., p. 59; Lewinski-Corwin, pp. 131-133.
[64] Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae,
vol. ii, fol. 429; Lewinski-Corwin, p. 182; Bain, p.
59.
[65] J. Janssen, History of the German People, vol. v, pp.
114-115.
[66] Urkundenbuch zur Reformationsgeschichte des
Herzogthums Preussens, Leipzig, 1890, vol. i, p. 337;
vol. ii, p. 289.
[67] Zakrzewski, p. 28.
[68] Volumina legum, vol. i, fol. 448, p. 223. For text
see Appendix, No. 5.
[69] See Edict of Dec. 28, 1524, appendix, No. 6.
[70] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 83 n. Dr. Warmiński, however,
claims that this date has no documentary support,
that we do not know anything certain of Seklucyan
until the year 1536. See his Andrzej Samuel i Jan
Seklucyan, Posen, 1906, pp. 18-21n., 22.
[71] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 83n.; Warmiński, p. 23.
[72] Warmiński, pp. 19-21.
[73] Smoleński, p. 94; Starczewski, p. 69.
[74] Ludwik Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 101 n. 42.
[75] Zakrzewski, p. 24.
[76] Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, vol. iii, pp. 649-650.
See Appendix, No. 7.
[77] Ibid., vol. iv, p. 3. See Appendix, No. 8.
[78] Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 29-30. See Appendix, No. 9.
[79] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 82-84, Prof. Merczyng’s note.
[80] Zakrzewski, pp. 23-24, 226-227. Roman Pilat, Historja
poezji polskiej, Warsaw, 1909, p. 30.
[81] Theiner, vol. ii, fols. 426-429; Zakrzewski, pp.
29-30.
[82] Zakrzewski, p. 30.
[83] Ibid., p. 30.
[84] Ibid., pp. 30-31.
[85] Ibid., p. 31.
[86] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 84.
[87] Zakrzewski, p. 31.
[88] Grabowski, p. 16; Alexander Brückner, Dzieje
literatury polskiej, Warsaw, 1908, vol. i, p. 82.
[89] See text of the king’s letter in Appendix, No. 10.
[90] Ibid., No. 11.
[91] Volumina legum, vol. i, p. 257.
[92] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 85.
[93] Zakrzewski, p. 40; Warmiński, p. 10.
[94] Lewinski-Corwin, p. 139; cf. also David Hannay,
Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xxi, Article “Poland.”
Lutheranism penetrated into Poland by 1520, Calvinism
by 1534, the Bohemian Brethren by 1548, and the
Anabaptists by 1533, preceding the Calvinists by one
year (Kubala, Orzechowski, p. 100, n. 23).
[95] See Starczewski, pp. 84-131.
[96] Reformacja w Polsce, vol. i, No. 1, pp. 65-67.
[97] Starczewski, pp. 105-106; L. Kubala, Stanisław
Orzechowski, pp. 31-33.
[98] Zakrzewski, p. 41.
[99] Ibid., p. 44.
[100] Ibid.; Smoleński, p. 103.
[101] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 85.
[102] Ibid., vol. i, p. 86.
[103] Quoted by Zakrzewski from the Crown Register for
1543, as the Constitution in the Volumina legum, vol.
i, fol. 566 ff. omits that particular provision. See
Zakrzewski, pp. 240-241. First instance of the use of
Polish. See Appendix, No. 12.
[104] Zakrzewski, p. 241. See text in Appendix, No. 12.
[105] Ibid., p. 47.
[106] Alex. Brückner, Mikołaj Rej. Lemberg, 1922, pp.
17-25; Dzieje lit. pol., Warsaw, 1908, vol. i, p.
102; Zakrzewski, pp. 48-49.
[107] Zakrzewski, p. 242; for text, see Appendix No. 13.
It is of considerable interest to note the various
royal and ecclesiastical measures of Sigismund I’s
reign against the Reformation. In 1520, by the Edict
of Thorn, the importation and sale of Luther’s works
was prohibited; in 1523 censorship and search of
residences was introduced; in the same year the
heretics of Łęczyca were excommunicated, and in 1527
the synod of Łęczyca renewed the Inquisition; in
1534 the Poles were forbidden to resort to foreign
educational institutions; in 1541 the Polish nobles
were forbidden to harbor heretics under penalty of
deprivation of nobility rights; and in 1544 the
Polish clergy abroad were ordered to return home
under penalty of deprivation of their benefices
(Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 100, n. 22).
[108] Zakrzewski, p. 49.
[109] Crown Register, Bk. 70, ZF. fol. 643, cited by
Zakrzewski, pp. 242-243.
[110] Raynold, Annales Ecclesiastici ad annum, 1546, No.
97, cited by Zakrzewski, p. 243.
[111] Alex. Brückner, Różnowiercy polscy, Warsaw, 1905,
p. 7 ff.; John Fijałek, in Reformacja w Polsce
(Reformation in Poland), Quarterly of Reformation
Historical Society, Warsaw, 1922, Nos. 5-6, p. 1 ff.;
Dalton, John a Lasco.
[112] Warmiński, pp. 3 ff., 42 ff.
[113] Zakrzewski, p. 50.
[114] Ibid., p. 53.
[115] Ibid., pp. 52-58; Roman Pilat, Hist. poezji pol., p.
30.
[116] Warmiński, p. 17.
[117] Zakrzewski, p. 53.
[118] Ibid., p. 56.
[119] Theiner, vol. ii, folios 560, 561, 563-565.
[120] Zakrzewski, p. 59.
[121] Ibid., p. 60.
[122] Ibid.
[123] Ibid.
[124] Ibid.
[125] Brückner, Dz. lit. pol. vol. i, p. 102; Zakrzewski,
p. 246, n. 11a.
[126] Jos. Łukaszewicz, Dzieje kościołów wyznania
helweckiego, Posen, 1853.
[127] Kubala, Orzechowski, pp. 28-37; Zakrzewski, p. 65.
[128] Brückner, Dz. lit. pol., vol. i, p. 102.
[129] Zakrzewski, p. 61.
[130] Kubala, p. 30.
[131] Zakrzewski, p. 61.
[132] Ibid., pp. 65-66.
[133] Ibid., p. 67.
[134] Kubala, pp. 31-32.
[135] Ibid., pp. 35-37; Zakrzewski, p. 69.
[136] Zakrzewski, p. 69.
[137] Ibid., p. 71.
[138] Ibid., p. 70.
[139] Ibid., pp. 72, 251; Eichhorn Hosius, vol. i, p. 212.
[140] Zakrzewski, pp. 72-73.
[141] Łukaszewicz, Dz. kośc. helw. w Małopolsce, pp. 20-44.
[142] Zakrzewski, p. 75.
[143] Ibid., pp. 75-76.
[144] Ibid., pp. 80-81.
[145] Ibid., pp. 91-92.
[146] Theiner, vol. ii, fols. 576, 577; Zakrzewski, pp.
92-93.
[147] Zakrzewski, pp. 94-95.
[148] Ibid., pp. 96-97.
[149] Ibid., p. 97.
[150] Ibid., p. 98.
[151] Ibid., pp. 98-99.
[152] Ibid., pp. 103-104.
[153] Łukaszewicz, Dz. kośc. helw., pp. 247-248;
Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. i, pp. 15-34.
[154] Łukaszewicz, O Kościołach Braci Czeskich w
Wielkopolsce, p. 49.
[155] Lismanini went to East Prussia, where he found
protection, and whence he was sent on missions to the
King of Poland by Duke Albert.
[156] Brückner, Różnowiercy polscy, pp. 74-89; Zakrzewski,
pp. 99-100.
[157] Zakrzewski, pp. 106-107.
[158] For the original, see Friese, Beiträge, vol. ii, No.
1, p. 269.
[159] Zakrzewski, pp. 108-109.
[160] Ibid., p. 109.
[161] Ibid., pp. 109-110.
[162] Ibid., pp. 110-111, 259, n. 34.
[163] Łukaszewicz, O Kościołach Braci Czeskich, pp. 46-48.
[164] Zakrzewski, pp. 132, 134.
[165] Ibid., pp. 117, 118.
[166] Ibid., pp. 119-126.
[167] Ibid., p. 144.
[168] Ibid., p. 152.
[169] Ibid., pp. 146-147.
[170] See Appendix, No. 14.
[171] Smoleński, pp. 77, 78, 91.
[172] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 661.
[173] Zakrzewski, pp. 178-179.
[174] Ibid., pp. 199-200, 201-207.
[175] Ibid., p. 206; Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 694.
[176] Henry Merczyng, Zbory i Senatorowie w Dawnej Polsce,
Appendix in Krasiński, vol. iii, pp. 143, 262-263.
[177] Ibid., p. 143.
[178] Winter, Poland of Today and Yesterday, p. 305.
[179] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 237-242; Zakrzewski, p. 219.
[180] Vol. leg., vol. ii, pp. 124-125; see also Reformation
in Poland, Nos. 5-6, pp. 54-70.