Calvinism in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 1548-1648 9789004424821

Table of contents :
Dedication
Contents
Acknowledgments
Name and Place Conventions
Timeline of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Maps and Illustrations
Part 1: The Commonwealth in the Age of the Reformation
1 Introduction
2 The Land of Many Sects
Part 2: The Reformed Churches
3 Church Polity
4 The Liturgy
5 Church Discipline
6 The Ministry
7 Patterns of Piety
Part 3: The Reformed Faithful
8 The Nobles Convert
9 A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs
10 Calvinists in Royal Towns
11 Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters
12 “Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”— Women and Calvinism in the Commonwealth
13 The Ambiguity of Numbers
14 Conclusion
Bibliography
Name and Authors Index

Citation preview

Calvinism in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 1548–​1648

St Andrews Studies in Reformation History Lead Editor Bridget Heal (University of St Andrews) Editorial Board Amy Burnett (University of Nebraska-​Lincoln) Euan Cameron (Columbia University) Bruce Gordon (Yale University) Kaspar von Greyerz (Universität Basel) Felicity Heal (Jesus College, Oxford) Karin Maag (Calvin College, Grand Rapids) Roger Mason (University of St Andrews) Andrew Pettegree (University of St Andrews) Alec Ryrie (Durham University) Jonathan Willis (University of Birmingham)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/​sasrh

Calvinism in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 1548-​1648 The Churches and the Faithful By

Kazimierz Bem

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: The Calvinist church in Kojdanów (today: Dzyarzhynsk, Belarus) in c. 1900. Photo from Biblioteka Synodu Kościoła, Ewangelicko-​Reformowanego, Warsaw. The Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data is available online at http://​catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://​lccn.loc.gov/2020005890​

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/​brill-​typeface. issn 2468-​4 317 isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​4 2481-​4 (hardback) isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​4 2482-​1 (e-​book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-​free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For my Parents -​z wyrazami wdzięczności i miłości

∵

Contents

Acknowledgments ix Name and Place Conventions x Timeline of the Polish-​Lithuanian Commonwealth xiii Maps and Illustrations xv

part 1 The Commonwealth in the Age of the Reformation 1

Introduction 3

2

The Land of Many Sects 7 2.1 The People and Their Religions 8 2.2 The Territories and Their Governance 13 2.3 The Reformation in Poland and Lithuania before 1548 16

part 2 The Reformed Churches 3

Church Polity 23 3.1 The Early Years: 1548–​1595 23 3.2 Growing Together: 1595–​1630s 35 3.3 The 1634 Włodawa General Convocation and Its Aftermath 39

4

The Liturgy 47 4.1 The Early Years: 1550–​1595 47 4.2 Kraiński’s Forma of 1599 and the 1601 Agenda in Lesser Poland 57 4.3 Liturgical Developments in the Greater Poland Brethren Churches 65 4.4 Reformed Liturgy in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1550–​1621 71 4.5 Toward a Unified Reformed Liturgy in Poland and Lithuania 77

5

Church Discipline 86 5.1 Theological Background of Reformed Church Discipline before 1634 87

viii Contents

5.2 The Practice of Reformed Church Discipline before 1634 94 5.3 Reformed Church Discipline after the 1634 Włodawa Convocation 104

6

The Ministry 113

7

Patterns of Piety 131

part 3 The Reformed Faithful 8

The Nobles Convert 165

9

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs 196

10

Calvinists in Royal Towns 222

11

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters 240

12

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”—​Women and Calvinism in the Commonwealth 258

13

The Ambiguity of Numbers 273

14

Conclusion 281



Bibliography 287 Name and Authors Index 310

Acknowledgments This book is a product of not just my own work and research, but also of all the kindness, support, and encouragement I received for over eight years since I first embarked on this task. Professor Bruce Gordon from Yale Divinity School deserves both the credit and the blame for suggesting to me that I write this book. His words of encouragement and critique throughout this process were much appreciated. He and Professor Brian Spinks deserve to be thanked for being my S.T.M thesis advisors when I first thought about writing about the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed. So many people helped me write this book in too many ways too describe. I  list them in alphabetical order:  Brad Abromaitis, Marysia Blackwood, Ewa Cherner, John Cowie, Jakub Cupriak-​Trojan, Henryk Gmiterek, Fred Haas, Mark Harmer, Bridget Heal, Regan Hildebrand, Sarah Hubbell, Bartłomiej Jurzak, Iza Kalinowska, Francis Knikker, Semko Koroza, Sławomir Kościelak, Waldemar Kowalski, Wojciech Kriegseisen, Marzena Liedke, Scott Nevins, Christine Pesch, Ewa Piskurewicz, Alexandra Plotkin, Roman Pracki, Maciej Ptaszyński, Helena Ratomska, Anita Stetson, Brian Stone, Kamila Szymańska, Jerzy Ternes, Mateusz Trojan, Włodzimierz Zuzga. I cannot thank them enough for their patience with me. If I  forgot anyone—​I beg your forgiveness. Being excited (in a decent, orderly, and Calvinist way) about Polish and Lithuanian Reformed is a fruit of being nurtured by amazing congregations:  Parafia Ewangelicko-​Reformowana w Łodzi, the English Reformed Church in Amsterdam, and Shalom ucc in New Haven. I am a full-​time pastor of First Church in Marlborough (Congregational) ucc. Without these amazing folks’ loving support, this work would not have been possible at all. I am blessed and honored to be ministering with a community like you. Thank you and God bless you. Finally, I want to thank with humbleness and gratitude my parents, without whose words of encouragement, admonition, and motivation, this book would never have been finished at all. I cannot thank you enough. For all the goodness, kindness, help, and encouragement I  have received in these past years: Soli Deo gloria—​to God be the Glory!

Name and Place Conventions Any book dealing with the Polish-​Lithuanian Commonwealth must have a section about personal and geographical names used. The subject is fraught with many problems, so to be consistent, I have used the following rules. 1

Spelling of Personal Names

I have decided to use Polish version of names of people who lived in the Commonwealth: dignitaries, and common folk—​thus, John a Lasco is Jan Łaski. The same rule applies to monarchs and their family members: Zygmunt i the Old instead of Sigismund i the Old Zygmunt ii August instead of Sigismund ii Augustus Zygmunt iii Waza instead of Sigismund iii Vasa Władysław iv Waza instead of Vladislav iv Vasa Jan ii Kazimierz instead of John ii Casimir Vasa When it came to foreigners: Francesco Stancaro is Francesco Stancaro throughout the book, but his son, born and raised in the Commonwealth is Franciszek Stankar, as he was known to his contemporaries. 2 Geographical Names In general, I used English names for the three capital cities: Warsaw instead of Warszawa, Cracow instead of Kraków, Vilnius instead of Wilno. The other places are given their Polish names—​below is a table of the places mentioned most often with the names in other languages. The sole exception to this rule is Sandomir—​due to the Sandomir Confession and Sandomir Consensus, I refer to the city by its English and not its Polish name of Sandomierz. Names for places outside the boundaries of the Commonwealth—​like Brieg or Königsberg are used as they were then, no matter what countries or names they may bear now.

xi

Name and Place Conventions

Polish

German

Brzeg Dolny Brześć Litewski Cieszyn Elbląg Gdańsk Inflanty Kiejdany Kielmy Kijów Krokowa Królewiec Kurlandia Leszno Lwów Małopolska Mokry Dwór Nowe Miasto Nowogródek Oświęcim Pszczyna Połock Poznań Prusy Królewskie Sandomierz Skoki Słupsk Toruń Troki Wielkopolska Wilno Witebsk Żmudź

Brieg Teschen Elbing Danzig Livland

Krockow Königsberg Kurland Lissa Lemberg Nassenhuben Auschwitz Pleß

Lithuanian

Wilna

English

Brest Litovsk

Kėdainiai Kelmė

Livonia Kiev

Karaliaučius

Kiev Courland

Lviv

Lvov Lesser Poland

Naujamiestis Naugardukas Navahrudak Polatsk

Posen West Prüßen Skokken Stolp Thorn

Ukrainian or Belarusian

Pless Polotsk West/​Royal Prussia Sandomir

Trakai Vilnius Žemaitija

Viciebsk

Trakai Greater Poland Vilnius Vitebsk Samogitia

xii  3

Name and Place Conventions

Titles and Terms

In general, titles and ranks with few exceptions are translated into English. Thus “wojewoda” is palatine, “kasztelan” is castellan, “starosta” is captain and the uniquely polish “królewna” or “królewicz” are translated as Princess Royal and Crown Prince. However, the Polish name for Parliament—​Sejm—​is ­retained. 4 Translations Almost all of the translations in the book are mine. Where another book had the text translated into English (for example Lubieniecki’s book on the history of the Reformation in Poland), I used the one already available, unless I disagreed with the translation.

Timeline of the Polish-​Lithuanian Commonwealth 1548 –​ Zygmunt ii August ascends the throne as king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania 1550 –​Francisco Stancaro installed as minister in Pińczów 1557  –​ Zygmunt ii August grants to Gdańsk the privilege to openly practice both kinds of Communion and profess Lutheranism based on the Augsburg Confession; Similar privileges are issued later to other cities in Royal Prussia 1563  –​ Brest Bible, the first complete Protestant translation of the Bible into Polish published 1565 –​The Polish Sejm abolishes the enforcement of ecclesiastical courts’ decisions for heresy by the captains 1565 –​Schism in the Lesser Poland Reformed Church into Calvinists and Polish Brethren (Unitarians) 1569 –​Union of Lublin unites Poland and Lithuania into the “Commonwealth of Both Nations” 1570 –​ Consensus of Sandomir signed by the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Czech Brethren; Calvinists print the Sandomir Confession 1572 –​ Zygmunt ii August dies without heirs; First interregnum begins 1573 –​ Warsaw Confederation passed as law; Henry d’Anjou elected king 1574 –​Henry d’Anjou flees to France; Second interregnum; First destruction of the Reformed Church in Cracow 1575  –​ Stefan Batory and Maximilian ii Habsburg elected kings in a divided election—​Batory wins 1578 –​Tribunals in the Crown and Lithuania established as highest courts in the land with mixed chambers to adjudicate between nobles and Catholic Church 1586 –​Stefan Batory dies; Third interregnum 1587 –​Second destruction of the Cracow Reformed Church 1587 –​ Zygmunt iii Waza and Archduke Maximilian Habsburg elected kings in a divided election—​Zygmunt iii wins 1588 –​ Third Lithuanian Statute promulgated, granting Reformed Churches in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania legal recognition and protection under the law 1590 –​Anti-​Calvinist riots in Gdańsk by Lutheran burghers 1591 –​Final destruction of the Cracow Reformed Church 1595 –​General Synod of Protestants in Toruń—​Lutherans withdraw from the Sandomir Consensus 1596 –​Eastern Orthodox bishops accept union with Rome—​Brest Union 1599 –​Reformed and the Eastern Orthodox nobles attempt to forge a political union to defend their rights

newgenprepdf

xiv 

Timeline of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

1605 –​1656 The Czech Brethren control the office of “senior” in Toruń 1606 –​1608 Civil war—​Rokosz Zebrzydowskiego 1612 –​ Zygmunt iii limits city offices in Gdańsk to Lutherans and Catholics, excluding the Calvinists, but stays silent on the latter’s right to worship. 1632 –​ Zygmunt iii dies; Fourth interregnum; Władysław iv Waza elected; Muscovy invades and captures Smoleńsk; Protestant churches removed in royal cities in the Crown, except in Royal Prussia 1632  –​ The Gdańsk Bible published by the three Reformed Churches in the Commonwealth 1633 –​Reformed Church in Lublin destroyed by a Roman Catholic mob 1634 –​General Convocation in Włodawa unifies the liturgy and polity of the three Reformed Churches in the Commonwealth 1637 –​ The Great Gdańsk Agenda published 1638 –​Unitarian Racovia Academy (Akademia Rakowska) closed by order of the Sejm 1640  –​The Vilnius Reformed congregation is removed from within the city walls by order of the Sejm 1641 –​Last Protestant Speaker of the Sejm 1645 –​ Colloquium Charitativum organized by Władysław iv in Toruń 1648 –​ Władysław iv dies; uprising of the Cossacks in Ukraine; Jan ii Kazimierz Waza elected 1648 –​1657 Chmielnicki (Cossacks) Rising 1651  –​Calvinists in Gdańsk granted the right to hold office and given two churches for their worship 1654 –​1667 War with Muscovy devastates the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1655 –​1660 War with Sweden—​the “Deluge”—​devastates the Crown 1658 –​Unitarians banned from the Commonwealth unless they convert within two years 1659 –​Conversion of Unitarians limited to Catholicism 1660 –​Peace of Oliwa with Sweden 1666 –​Last Protestant senator dies 1668 –​Abjuring Roman Catholicism punishable by death as “apostasy”; Jan ii Kazimierz abdicates

newgenrtpdf

Maps and Illustrations

newgenrtpdf

xvi 

Maps and Illustrations

newgenrtpdf

Maps and Illustrations

xvii

xviii 

Maps and Illustrations

Maps and Illustrations

“All maps were done by Waldemar Wieczorek”.

xix

xx 

­f igure 1  Old former Reformed church in Kozy (c. 1900), source: Izba Pamięci, Kozy

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 2  Former Reformed church in  Oksa source: Wikipedia

­f igure 3  Former Reformed church in Smorgonie (c. 1990) source: photo from biblioteka synodu kościoła ewangelicko-​ reformowanego, warsaw

Maps and Illustrations

xxi

­f igure 4  Former Reformed church in Zasław (c. 1917) source: public domain

In the Crown many former Catholic churches like the one in Kozy (figure 1) were seized in the 1550s and 1560s by the Reformed. The church in Oksa (­figure 2), from c. 1570 was one of the earliest Calvinist churches built for Reformed worship in Europe. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania noble patrons built new edifices:  Smorgonie (1612, figure 3) and Zasław (ca.1590, figure 4). When their descendants converted to Catholicism—​these buildings were turned over to Roman Catholics: Kozy in 1660, Zasław and Smorgonie in the 1630s, and Oksa in 1678.

xxii 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 5  Former Reformed church in Dziewałtów (c. 1913) source:b. grużewski, zbór ewangelicko-​r eformowany w kielmach, warsaw 1913

Maps and Illustrations

xxiii

­f igure 6  Reformed church in Ostaszyn (c. 1910) source: photo from biblioteka synodu kościoła ewangelicko-​ reformowanego, warsaw

­f igure 7  Reformed church in Kielmy (2000) source: photo by author

xxiv 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 8  Interior of the Reformed Church in Kielmy (c.1900) source: public domain

Many of the Reformed churches built in the early 17th century survived under a noble family’s patronage until the 20th century. The churches in Dziewałtów (figure 5), Ostaszyn (figure 6) and Kielmy (figure 7) are examples of this. Kielmy was the seat of the devoutly Calvinist Grużewski family for 400 years. This rare picture of the Kielmy church from c. 1900 (figure 8) shows the plain Reformed interior preserved until the 20th century. A communion railing was added for the Lutheran immigrants in the 19th century, but the church still had no cross or candelabras which were considered “too Catholic.”

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 9  Reformed church in Kojdanów (c. 1917) source: public domain

­f igure 10  Interior of the Reformed Church in Kojdanów (c. 1917) source: public domai

xxv

xxvi 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 11  Former Reformed/​Brethren (St. John’s) church in Leszno (2017) source: photo by author

Maps and Illustrations

xxvii

­f igure 12  Interior of the former Reformed/​Brethren (St. John’s) church in Leszno (c.1900) source:Muzeum Okręgowe w Lesznie.

The Commonwealth’s three Reformed Churches shared similar theology, liturgy and practice. This can be seen from the pictures of the Calvinist church in Kojdanów in Grand Duchy (1613, figures 9 and 10) and the former Brethren church in Leszno, Greater Poland (1652–​1654, figures 11 and 12). In both cases the pews are centered around the pulpit, the interior is devoid of any images. After being incorporated into the Prussian United Evangelical Church in 1817, the Leszno congregation was forced to move the communion table to the front of the church, install a railing, and introduce a crucifix and candelabra, to resemble Lutheran churches. However, the seating was not rearranged and thus until Roman Catholics seized it in 1945, the church retained its original interior. The Kojdanów church kept its austere Calvinist interior until the communists tore it down in the 1920s.

xxviii 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 13  Anna Radziwiłł (Kiszka) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​6 9 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

xxix

­f igure 14  Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​5 0 mnw)

­f igure 15  Reformed church in Kiejdany (2000) source: photo by author

xxx 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 16  Radziwiłł pew in the Reformed church in Kiejdany (c. 1900, destroyed post 1945)

Considered the capital of Calvinism in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Kiejdany was also seat of the Calvinist line of the Radziwiłł family. Their position in town and church was underlined by a unique collator’s pew (or box) situated opposite the pulpit. The monumental church (figure 15), often referred to as “cathedral,” was built in 1631 by Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł (1585–​1640 figure 14) and his wife Anna Kiszka (d.1642, figure 13). Both spouses enjoyed a long and happy marriage, and shared a generosity and fierce dedication to the Reformed faith.

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 17  Former Reformed church of St. Peter and Paul in Gdańsk (c.1900) source: public domain

­f igure 18  Former Reformed church of St. Elizabeth in Gdańsk (c.1900) source: public domain

xxxi

xxxii 

­f igure 19  Bartłomiej Keckermann (1572–​1609) source: public domain

Maps and Illustrations

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 20  Piotr Artomiusz (1552–​1609) source:  public domain

xxxiii

xxxiv 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 21  Henryk Stroband (1548–​1609) source: muzeum okręgowe in toruń

In the Royal Prussian cities of Gdańsk and Toruń Calvinism became the religion of the burgher elite and in many ways relied on the personality and eloquence of preachers. In Gdańsk the churches of St. Peter and Paul (figure 17) and St. Elizabeth’s (figure 18) were the centers of Calvinism, and its spread was aided by teachers in the city’s Gymnasium—​like Bartłomiej Keckermann (figure 19). In Toruń, the city’s major Henryk Stroband (figure 21) and preacher Piotr Artomiusz (figure 20) did their best to promote Calvinism among the city’s pastors and faithful.

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 22  Alleged portrait of Brethren minister Adam Samuel Hartmann, source: Muzeum Okręgowe w Lesznie (mlh-​5 8)

­f igure 23  Silver communion flagon given to the Leszno Brethren Congregation source: Muzeum Okręgowe w Lesznie (mlh-​6 1)

xxxv

xxxvi 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 24  Brethren silver box for communion hosts (c.1676) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (szm 2006)

One of the features of Commonwealth’s Calvinism in the 17th century is a lack of portraits of its main patrons or clergy. The alleged portrait of Brethren minister Andrzej Samuel Hartmann (figure 22) is one of the few exceptions. Instead, we have items associated with Calvinist worship: a silver communion flagon for the Leszno Brethren church or a box for communion hosts made especially for a noblewoman from Royal Prussia from the Czema family. The inscription in Polish is a quote from 1 Corinthians 10:16, used in Calvinist liturgy: “The bread that we break—​is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?”

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 25  Zbigniew Gorajski (c.1590–​1655) source: muzeum narodowe w krakowie (mnk iii-​r yc-​3 7097)

xxxvii

xxxviii 

­f igure 26  Bogusław Leszczyński (1612–​1659) source: public domain

Maps and Illustrations

Maps and Illustrations

xxxix

­f igure 27  Władysław Rej (1612–​1682) source: courtesy of Przemysław Rey

Faced with mounting Catholic pressure these three noblemen made different political and religious choices: Zbigniew Gorajski (c.1590–​1655, ­figure 25) remained devoutly Reformed all his life. His brother-​in-​law, Bogusław Leszczyński (1612–​1659, figure 26) converted to Catholicism in 1642 but continued to shield his Brethren subjects and ensured Leszno remained their center. Władysław Rej (1612–​1682, figure 27) converted shortly after his father-​in-​law (Gorajski) died, and while he did not persecute his former co-​religionists, he was indifferent to their religious needs and closed the Calvinist churches on his estates. His wife remained a Calvinist all her life.

xl 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 28  Elżbieta Radziwiłł (Szydłowiecka) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​6 6 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

xli

­f igure 29  Mikołaj Radziwiłł The Black by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​6 5 mnw)

xlii 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 30  Mikołaj Radziwiłł The Orphan by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​9 0 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

xliii

­f igure 31  Cardinal Jerzy Radziwiłł by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​7 1 mnw)

xliv 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 32  Zofia Czema (Radziwiłł) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​6 8 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

xlv

­f igure 33  Anna Buczacka (Radziwiłł) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​5 1 mnw)

Commonwealth Calvinism’s rise and decline can often be traced in one family. Duchess Elżebieta Szydłowiecka (1533–​1562, figure 28) and her husband Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł The Black (1515–​1565, figure 29) were devout Protestants and promoted it vigorously from the 1550s onwards. However, their two sons, Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł The Orphan (1549–​1616, figure 30) and Jerzy Radziwiłł (1556–​ 1600, figure 31) converted to Roman Catholicism in 1570s and became zealous converts—​the latter even became a bishop and cardinal. Of the eight children of Radziwiłł The Black and his wife, only two daughters—​Zofia Czema (1552-​ c.1591, figure 32) and Anna Buczacka (1553–​1590, figure 33)—​did not convert, kept their Reformed faith and passed it on to their children. Some of Anna’s descendants are Reformed to this day.

xlvi 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 34  Jerzy Radziwiłł by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​3 6 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

xlvii

­f igure 35  Zofia Radziwiłł (Zborowska) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​3 7 mnw)

xlviii 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 36  Zofia Dorohostajska (Radziwiłł) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​3 5 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

xlix

­f igure 37  Katarzyna Gorajska (Radziwiłł) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​3 4 mnw)

Much like his cousin, Duke Krzysztof ii, Duke Jerzy Radziwiłł (1578–​1613, figure 34) enjoyed a happy and faithful marriage with a Protestant from Greater Poland, Zofia Zborowska (d.1618, figure 35), marred only by the death in infancy of all their children. However, not all Reformed marriages were happy. The duke’s two sisters, Zofia Dorohostajska (d.1614, figure 36) and Katarzyna Gorajska (d. c. 1621, figure 37), married to co-​religionists, but had well known affairs. Zofia eventually reconciled with her husband, but Katarzyna left hers in 1618—​but never divorced.

l

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 38  Bogusław Radziwiłł by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​4 6 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 39  Anna Maria Radziwiłł by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​4 7 mnw)

li

lii 

Maps and Illustrations

­f igure 40  Ludwika Karolina Radziwiłł by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​4 8 mnw)

Maps and Illustrations

liii

­f igure 41  Katarzyna Hlebowicz (Radziwiłł) by Hirsh Leybowicz (1700-​c.1785) source: collection of muzeum narodowe w warszawie/​n ational museum in warsaw (gr.pol.10095/​5 2 mnw)

The last generations of the Calvinist Radziwiłłs demonstrated both remarkable familial love and deep attachment to their Reformed faith. Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł (1620–​1669, figure 38) married his cousin Duchess Anna Maria Radziwiłł (1640–​1647, figure 39), who fell in love with him. After she died giving birth to their only daughter Princess Ludwika Karolina (1667–​1695, figure 40), the widowed duke dotted on his only daughter and heiress. To strengthen her Calvinist faith, she was brought up at the Hohenzollern court. His cousin, Katarzyna Hlebowiczowa (1614–​1674, figure 41) was a devout Calvinist all her life—​despite the fact that her daughters converted to Roman Catholicism. She left generous bequests to churches and almshouses of her beloved “holy, evangelical alias, Calvinist disdained faith.”

pa rt 1 The Commonwealth in the Age of the Reformation

∵

­c hapter 1

Introduction Four months before she died, Katarzyna Hlebowicz (1614–​1674) began her last will by stating: “Firstly, I give thanks to my Lord God, to whom I give myself even now, that I was born in the true knowledge of Him, was brought up and spent my lifespan, and to this day by His holy grace remain in the holy, evangelical, alias Calvinist disdained faith.”1 Born into the Radziwiłłs—​the wealthiest and post powerful magnate family in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania—​she witnessed the fate of her co-​religionists first hand. When she was born, the three Reformed Churches in the Commonwealth were large and counted among them scores of middle nobles, magnate families, and burghers throughout the realm. She saw the Calvinists consolidate theologically and liturgically, even as their political and legal fortunes receded. Reformed churches were removed by law from royal towns in the Crown in 1632 and from Vilnius in 1640, and conversion from Roman Catholicism, termed “apostasy,” was forbidden by law in 1668. With those changes came the constant hemorrhaging of the faithful, and the continued closure of Reformed congregations. Katarzyna witnessed these events in her own family. By the time she was of marriageable age, Reformed magnates were already few and hard to come by. As a result, she married a Roman Catholic, Jerzy Karol Hlebowicz (d. 1669), himself a son of a convert. Katarzyna raised their two daughters Anna Marcybella (1641–​1681) and Krystyna Barbara (d. 1685) in her Reformed faith. However, shortly after their own marriages, both daughters converted to Roman Catholicism. It was Katarzyna’s niece, Princess Ludwika Karolina Radziwiłł (1667–​1695), who would become the last Calvinist Radziwiłł; she too ultimately fell in love and wedded a Roman Catholic prince. Thus, not unlike the contemporary Huguenot de Rohan family, the leading Calvinist family in the Commonwealth came to an end by the end of the seventeenth century.2 When it comes to historiography of the Reformation in the Commonwealth of Both Nations, the Sandomir Consensus (1570) and the Confederation of Warsaw (1573) have been universally assumed to be the pinnacle of the Reformation 1 U. Augustyniak, Testamenty ewangelików reformowanych w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w XVI-​XVII wieku (Warszawa: 2014), 240. 2 J. Dewald, Status, Power, and Identity in Early Modern France. The Rohan Family 1550–​1715 (University Park: 2015), 95–​101.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_002

4

Chapter 1

movement.3 But upon closer examination, this view can only hold ground if one is describing the political influence of Protestants—​and not the polity, liturgy, or piety in the three Reformed Churches. In this book, I will try to show that the formation of the Reformed Churches as bodies with distinct Calvinist theology and church polity had not been completed by the 1570s. In fact, that process had only just begun and would continue until the 1634 Włodawa ­General Convocation. Around 1570, the three Reformed Churches in Poland-​Lithuania were combating Unitarian heresy and differed greatly in their theologies, polities, and liturgies. The Sandomir Consensus was merely a reaffirmation of the Trinitarian belief of the three main Calvinist Churches and Lutherans, and perhaps their attempt to build a unified Protestant Church in the Commonwealth—​a church broad enough to include moderate Lutherans. The Sandomir Confession was prepared by the Lesser Poland Reformed Church and was accepted by the Lithuanian Reformed and later by the Czech Brethren too. It proved to be the base on which Lesser Poland’s Reformed Church could start to rebuild and consolidate theologically after the schism with the Polish Brethren, as well as draw the other Churches closer. However, all of that took place after the heyday of their political importance, in the decades after 1570, and especially after 1595.4 The formation of the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed Churches was a slow, highly decentralized process. The adoption of the Sandomir Consensus was not the high point of Polish-​Lithuanian Calvinism, but rather only one of many stations—​albeit an important one—​on a long road towards the formation and consolidation of Calvinism in the Commonwealth. In some ways, the three Churches in the Commonwealth and their theological developments followed dynamics similar to the Second Reformation that was sweeping through ­Western Europe.5

3 P. Benedict, Christ Churches Purely Reformed. A  Social history of Calvinism (New Haven—​ London: 2002), 597–​598; D. MacCulloch, The Reformation (London: 2003), 348–​356; P. Knoll, “Poland,” in ed. Hans J. Hillebrand, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (New York—​ Oxford: 1996), vol. 3, 286; W. Kriegseisen, Stosunki wyznaniowe w relacjach państwo-​kościół między reformacją a oświeceniem (Warszawa: 2010), 487–​500. 4 D. Petkunas, “The Consensus of Sandomierz: An early Attempt to Create a Unified Protestant Church in the 16th Century Poland and Lithuania,” Columbia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009): 324–​325. 5 H. Schilling, “Die „Zweite Reformation” als Kategorie der Geschichtswissenschaft.” In W. Reinhard and H. Schilling, Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland—​das Problem der „Zweiter Reformation“ (Gutersloh: 1986) 387–​437.

Introduction

5

For the Commonwealth’s Reformed Protestants, the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation is the equivalent of the Synod of Dort (1618) or the English Westminster Assembly (1648) in terms of consolidating theologically, organizationally, and liturgically the three Churches and placing them solidly in the Calvinist camp. Paralleling similar developments in Scotland, the Netherlands, and France, the churches in the Commonwealth thus reaped the benefits of a flourishing in decline that took place in the first three decades of the seventeenth century. The political, liturgical, and organizational consolidation came just before the calamity of the mid-​seventeenth century, and the dark 100 years that followed. Thus, even in 1674 and at the end of her life’s journey, Katarzyna Hlebowicz was still able to make bequests to her beloved Calvinist faith and its institutions—​in fact, she provided generously for the Reformed congregations in Kiejdany, Vilnius, Mińsk, Nowogródek, Lubcza, and Sielec, as well as for widows and orphans supported by these congregations. Numerically and politically, the Reformed may not have been what they were when she was born, but they were still relatively strong and devoutly Calvinist in their liturgy, polity, and daily piety.6 The life of Katarzyna Hlebowicz is representative of the history of Calvinism that I describe in this book. Specifically, I have tried to follow the pattern laid out in Philip Benedict’s book on European Calvinism. In the first section, I describe the developments of the polity, liturgy, and church discipline in the three Commonwealth Churches and the Reformed ministry, and end with a very broad overview of Reformed piety. In the second part of the book, titled “The Faithful,” I  look at the patterns of conversion to and from Calvinism, and the unique circumstances of the Calvinists in royal towns in the Crown and then in the three main cities of Royal Prussia, and give my explanation of those dynamics. The chapter on women and Calvinism is, hopefully, only the beginning of an assessment of the relationship between the two in the ­Commonwealth. A book like this of course begs to be put into a wider European context. However, that would probably triple its size. I have tried to the best of my abilities give the relevant literature in English or German. Again, following the pattern set by Benedict is intended to help the reader find parallels in his, and other books. Finally, wherever possible, I have tried to give three examples of the patterns described, preferably one from each of the three Churches. Where that was not possible or the patterns diverge from province to province, I note 6 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 241.

6

Chapter 1

this explicitly. While it might seem superfluous at times, it allows us to see the deep similarities of the three Churches, while not claiming that they were identical. Again, all of this, I hope, will provoke a rich discussion of theological, liturgical, and social uniformity and diversity within not just the Commonwealth’s Reformed, but also within Calvinism in Europe and beyond during the seventeenth century.

­c hapter 2

The Land of Many Sects At the dawn of the seventeenth century, one of the staunchest opponents of the Roman Catholic Church in the Commonwealth of Both Nations was the Eastern Orthodox Duke Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski (1526–​1608).1 Yet, while his dedication to his church was unwavering, his personal life and entourage were far from orthodox. The Duke was married to a Roman Catholic, who raised their two daughters in her religion. These daughters then wed, one to a Unitarian, the other to a Calvinist. Of the duke’s three sons, two eventually converted to Catholicism. Only the youngest, Aleksander (1570–​1603), stayed faithful to his father’s Orthodox faith and was its staunch defender. He also, like his father, married a Catholic, and allowed his children to be raised in her religion.2 The entourage of Duke Konstanty Wasyl was equally diverse:  his private town of Ostróg had not just an Eastern Orthodox church, but also a Catholic church, a stone synagogue erected by the town’s flourishing Jewish community, and a mosque for his Muslim, Tatar subjects. On other estates, there was a Unitarian church, and possibly a Calvinist one too. The Duke was known to employ people regardless of their religious faith, and commissioned a Unitarian to write a defense of Eastern Orthodoxy and a Calvinist to pen a polemic of the Brest Union with Rome.3 The eclectic entourage of this Ruthenian magnate was not unusual when it came to the ethnic, religious, and linguistic divisions of the Commonwealth in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Before delving into the details of the social history of Calvinism in the Polish-​Lithuanian Commonwealth during this period, it is necessary to say something about its political and legal milieu.

1 In this cursory description of the Commonwealth, I have relied on U. Augustyniak, Historia Polski 1572–​1795 (Warszawa: 2008). All the issues discussed here have an extensive bibliography there pp. 916–​939. 2 H. Kowalska, Aleksander Ostrogski (1570–​1603), PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 480. 3 T. Kempa, “Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski wobec katolicyzmu i wyznań protestanckich,” OiRwP 40 (1996):  17–​36; J.  Wyrozumski, Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski (ok.1526–​1608), PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 489–​496.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_003

8 2.1

Chapter 2

The People and Their Religions

Before the 1569 Union of Lublin (Unia Lubelska), which created the Commonwealth of the Two Nations (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów), the Commonwealth consisted of two distinct political entities: the Kingdom of Poland (Królestwo Polskie) and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie). While the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was ruled by a hereditary monarch under the Jagiellon dynasty, the Kingdom of Poland had been formally elective since the fifteenth century. The Jagiellon dynasty tried to replace the elective system in Poland with a hereditary monarchy when, in 1529, Zygmunt I the Old had his son Zygmunt ii August elected as king during his own lifetime. The Polish nobility balked at the prospect and in 1538 won the guarantee that all future royal elections would happen only after the death of a reigning monarch. Following the Union of Lublin and the death of Zygmunt ii August (1572), the principle of an elected monarchy became the rule for the newly created state.4 The Commonwealth had a fixed border with Western Pomerania and Brandenburg to the west, and with the Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary to the southwest; however, in the east and south, the borders fluctuated due to ongoing wars with Muscovy, Sweden, and Turkey. In 1582 it covered about 867,000 square kilometers, and reached its peak in 1637 after a ceasefire with Muscovy at 990,000 square kilometers. The Commonwealth was the second biggest country in Europe after Muscovy and before France. The former Kingdom of Poland, called “The Crown” (Korona), occupied around 570,000 square kilometers, while the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie) held the remainder.5 The Commonwealth had a number of vassal states whose rulers paid homage to the king personally, and the Commonwealth did at times intervene in their domestic affairs. These included Ducal Prussia (Prusy Książęce) and the Duchy of Courland and Semigalia (Księstwo Kurlandii i Semigalii), both of which had become officially Lutheran by the mid-​sixteenth century. Another tiny vassal area in the northwest of the Crown was Bytów and Lębork (Ziemia Bytowsko-​Lęborska). In 1637, King Władysław iv Waza incorporated these lands into the Crown and tried to restore the Catholic Church. However, in 1657, the two counties regained their vassal status when they were given to the electors of Brandenburg, who thwarted any attempts to convert the Lutheran population to Roman Catholicism.6 4 More on the Union of Lublin see R. Frost, The Oxford History of Poland-​Lithuania, vol. I: The making of the Polish-​Lithuanian Union 1385–​1569 (Oxford: 2015), 456–​494. 5 Augustyniak, Historia, 36–​37. 6 Augustyniak, Historia, 45–​53.

The Land of Many Sects

9

The Commonwealth did not formally have one capital. Until the end of the sixteenth century, kings were crowned and lived in Cracow and many parliaments met there. With the expansion of the Commonwealth to the east from 1611 onwards, Warsaw became the permanent residence of the king and his court, as well as where most parliaments met and where royal elections took place. As the largest city of the Grand Duchy, Vilnius was formally its capital, but no monarch resided there permanently. Cracow remained the place of royal coronations until the end of the Commonwealth.7 Overall, the Commonwealth was relatively sparsely populated with some areas of great density (Royal Prussia, Lesser and Greater Poland) and others with few inhabitants (the palatines of Kiev and Podole). Historians cautiously estimate that the Commonwealth’s total population was at maximum 11 million inhabitants around 1650, with about 4.5 million living in the Grand Duchy. This would have made it the fourth most populous country in Europe. Following the Chmielnicki Cossack Rising, the 1650–​1655 Swedish “Deluge,” and the 1650 invasion of Muscovy, the Commonwealth lost at least a quarter of its population. The Grand Duchy lost around thirty-​seven percent, while some of its areas in Belarus lost as much as two-​thirds of their population due to massacres, mass deportations of the population to Muscovy, and wartime destruction. These losses contributed to the Commonwealth’s political and economic demise in the second half of the seventeenth century and were not recovered until the end of the eighteenth century.8 The Commonwealth’s population exhibited considerable diversity when it came to distribution, ethnicity, class, and religion. Historians estimate that by the end of the sixteenth century in the Crown, 66.6% of the population was composed of peasants, 24.1% of burghers, 9.1% of nobles, and 0.2% of clergy. In Royal Prussia, the burgher population stood at 36.5%, and the noble at only 3.3%. On the other hand, in the staunchly Catholic Mazowsze, the burghers were only about 15% of the population, whereas the nobles were 23.4% and the clergy 0.9%. In the Grand Duchy, the nobles were about 8% of the population, peasants 75%, and burghers 16%.9 Even more problematic are estimates concerning the ethnicities and languages belonging to the Commonwealth. Generally, it has been assumed that by the end of the sixteenth century, ethnic Poles were at most fifty percent of the Commonwealth’s population, followed by Lithuanians and Ruthenians at

7 Ibid., 31–​32. 8 Ibid., 250–​252. 9 Historia Polski w Liczbach, GUS, vol. 1, (Warszawa: 2003), 77.

10 

Chapter 2

forty percent, with the remainder of the population divided between Latvians, Germans, Armenians, Jews, Tatars, and others. There were regional variations:  the Polish-​speaking population dominated the western parts of the Crown (Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Kujawy, Mazowsze) but areas like Royal Prussia in the north and the former Duchy of Oświęcim in the southwest had sizeable German-​speaking populations. In the Grand Duchy, Lithuanian and Samogitian speaking populations dominated in the palatines of Vilnius and Żmudź, but Ruthenians dominated in the rest of the Duchy, as well as in the south east of the Crown.10 As the Polish historian Henryk Samsonowicz aptly remarked, “We will never know what part of the Commonwealth’s population communicated in [the] Polish language, and what part spoke in German, Ruthanian, or Lithuanian.”11 A  general trend of Polonization can be observed from the fifteenth century both in the Crown—​where it started to replace German—​and in the Grand Duchy—​where it supplanted both Lithuanian and Ruthenian as the mother tongue among the nobility. Again, it should be stressed that in many localities parts of the population were bilingual, even if the nobility of the Commonwealth became linguistically Polonized by the 1650s.12 Throughout the period of this book, the Commonwealth remained an area of immigration for different ethnicities and for religious minorities. From the mid-​sixteenth century onwards, Scots flocked to the Commonwealth, which was seen as a land of economic opportunity, and their number had reached about 37,000 by the mid-​seventeenth century. The Scottish immigrants were religiously diverse (Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Catholic); however, their biggest group was Presbyterian, and they were instrumental in maintaining the Reformed Churches in the seventeenth century. Another immigrant group was the Armenians, whose presence in the Crown dated back to the fourteenth century and whose number is estimated at around 15,000 by the 1650s. The early seventeenth century also saw the arrival of the Dutch and Frisian speaking Mennonites, whose settlements were concentrated in Royal Prussia. They maintained a strict distance from their Catholic and Calvinist neighbors that resulted in tolerance and limited interference from Roman Catholic authorities. A minor religious and ethnic group of about 2,000 people present in the Grand Duchy were the Karaite Jews (Karaimi) who had settled in the

10 Augustyniak, Historia, 294. 11 A. Mączak, H. Samsonowicz, A. Szwarc, J. Tomaszewski, Od plemion do Rzeczpospolitej. Naród, państwo, terytorium w dziejach Polski (Warszawa: 1996), 62–​63. 12 Augustyniak, Historia, 415–​421.

The Land of Many Sects

11

Grand Duchy around 1397 and remained faithful to their religion and gathered around Vilnius and Troki.13 The Jews were an important religious minority and had been present in the Kingdom of Poland from at least the tenth century and in the Grand Duchy from the fifteenth century. They resided primarily in towns (royal or private) and their number at the end of the sixteenth century is estimated at around 150,000, making the Commonwealth the largest Jewish settlement in Europe. Thanks to a series of royal privileges, Jews lived under royal protection with a large degree of autonomy. They even had their own representative body, The Diet of Four Lands, both in the Crown (Sejm Czterech Ziem/​Waad Arba Aracot) and in the Grand Duchy (Sejm Litewski/​Waad Medinat Lita). However, during the Chmielnicki Rising (1648) and the ensuing Muscovy invasion, there was a campaign of religious cleansing of Catholics, Protestants, Poles, and Jews, and many of the latter were systematically slaughtered. Also in the Crown, the anti-​ Swedish forces of Stefan Czarniecki were known for their persecution of both Jews and Protestants.14 Muslim Tatars settled in the Grand Duchy in the fifteenth century around Vilnius and Toki and also in Wołyń in the Crown. They were issued with royal privileges guaranteeing freedom of religion, the right to build mosques, and to intermarry with Christians. By the mid-​seventeenth century, there were at least twenty-​six mosques in the realm, including one in Vilnius. Their population numbered approximately 10,000.15 While the Scots, Armenians, and Tatars mostly became Polonized by the end of the seventeenth century, often (but not always) losing their religious distinctiveness, Jews, Dutch and Frisian Mennonites retained both their ethnic and religious identities. In the middle were the Karaites, who did not abandon their religion but slowly became Polonized. The Eastern Orthodox remained the biggest religious minority in the Commonwealth. They received full protection of the law and religious freedom together with a separately organized church structure. They were under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Kiev, who was nominated by the king of Poland, and formally approved by the patriarch in Constantinople. Until the mid-​sixteenth century, the Orthodox could count among their faithful nobles, burghers, and peasants, Lithuanians, Ruthenians, and some Poles. The dynamic began to change, when in the mid-​sixteenth century, many of the nobles 13

Ibid., 285–​286; P.P. Bajer, Scots in Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 16th to 18th centuries (Leiden-​Boston: 2012), 41–​75. 14 Augustyniak, Historia, 287–​290. 15 Ibid., 265–​267.

12 

Chapter 2

began to convert: first to Protestantism and later to Catholicism. That, coupled with the Orthodox Church’s internal problems, caused the Roman Catholic hierarchy to pressure the bishops into a church union with Rome in 1596, in Brest (Unia Brzeska), creating the Uniate Church. According to its terms, By its virtues the Uniates were allowed to retain their distinct liturgy in Old Slavonic, the right of parish clergy to marry, and their own bishoprics under a their own metropolitan. The Uniate clergy were to swear allegiance to the pope.16 Officially, the Eastern Orthodox Church ceased to exist until 1632. But backed by the powerful Ostrogski dukes, as well as by many nobles (especially in Wołyń and Kiev), Eastern Orthodoxy persevered. Legal battles over bishoprics and monasteries dragged on for decades with great bitterness. During his election in 1632, King Władysław iv tried to pacify the disgruntled Orthodox, recognizing their Church’s legal existence, but it was too little and too late. From 1635 the Commonwealth had both Orthodox and Uniate Churches with separate hierarchies recognized by the Commonwealth’s law. During the course of the conflict, the Orthodox Church received the backing of the Cossacks, who began to see themselves as defenders of Orthodoxy, especially as the number of Orthodox nobles dwindled with their conversion to Catholicism in the 1600s. During the 1648 Chmielnicki Rising, Cossasks’ religious ire targeted the Latins, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews with equal vehemence and cruelty.17 The Roman Catholic Church was the biggest religious denomination in the Commonwealth and enjoyed the status and position of a state religion. The first ruler of Poland was baptized in 966. Lithuania and its ruling elite remained pagan (with a considerable number of Eastern Orthodox faithful in its conquered Belorussian lands) until the baptism of its Grand Duke Jogaila in 1386, who, as Władysław ii Jagiełło (d. 1434), married the Polish sovereign Jadwiga d’Anjou (1373/​74–​1399) and became co-​monarch of Poland. The coronations of the Polish-​Lithuanian monarchs were carried out according to Catholic rites, and Parliament traditionally opened with a formal mass. The Roman Catholic Church in the Commonwealth was organized into two metropolises: Gniezno (in Greater Poland) had nine bishoprics, while Lwów (in Ruthenia) had six. The four bishoprics in the Grand Duchy (Vilnius, Żmudź, Livonia, and Smoleńsk) were a part of the Gniezno metropolis. The archbishop 16

M. Dimitriev, “Conflict and Concord in Early Modern Poland. Catholics and Orthodox at the Union of Brest,” in Diversity and Dissent. Negotiating Religious Difference in Central Europe 1500–​1800 ed. H. Louthan, G. Cohen and F. Szabo, (New York—​Oxford: 2011), 114–​136. 17 Augustyniak, Historia, 183–​188.

The Land of Many Sects

13

of Gniezno was the highest officer of the church and held the title of “Primate of Poland.” During the interregnums, he took on the role of “interrex.” The archbishops of Gniezno and bishops of Cracow often received cardinals’ hats. Bishops were nominated by the king and received approval from the pope and all Latin Rite bishops sat in the Senate. The Roman Catholic Church in the Commonwealth had numerous privileges, both jurisdictional and economic. Even though some of the Church’s estates were seized during the Reformation, most remained intact. By the end of the seventeenth century, church-​owned estates comprised twenty percent of all property in the Commonwealth. The growth of clerical possession was a continuing source of resentment for the nobles, even the Catholics.18 Finally, for a short period between c. 1565 and 1660 the Commonwealth was home to the Unitarian Church. Known as the Ecclesia Minor (Zbór mniejszy) or Polish Brethren (Bracia Polscy), it grew primarily in Lesser Poland, and from the 1600s onwards in Wołyń. Despite producing gifted theologians like Faustus Socinus (1539–​1604), Andrzej Wiszowaty (1608–​1678), Jonasz Szlichtyng (1592–​1661), and Stanisław Lubieniecki (1623–​1675), as well as excellent schools (Raków, Kisielin), the Polish Brethren remained a minority of no more than 10 000 members. Their early social radicalism (abandoned by the 1600s) and consistent rejection of the Trinity, earned them the ecumenical loathing of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Calvinists alike. The legal position of the Unitarians began to erode quickly in the 1640s and finally in 1658, they were given a choice of conversion or expulsion from the realm by 1660. Tiny and clandestine groups of Unitarians continued in the Commonwealth until the end of the century but most converted to Roman Catholicism. Those who left settled in Ducal Prussia and Transylvania, where they survived until the late eighteenth century, or in Amsterdam, where they joined and influenced the Remonstrant Church.19 2.2

The Territories and Their Governance

The Commonwealth, like many other European countries, came into existence through a series of unions and acquisitions of territories, and has been described as a “Federated Commonwealth.”20 Even after the 1569 Union of Lublin, territories within the realm retained varying degrees of local difference in customs 18 Ibid., 173–​177. 19 E. M. Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism. Socinianism and its Antecedents (Boston: 1945). 20 Augustyniak, Historia, 40.

14 

Chapter 2

and, in places, in law. In the lands of the Crown, the two main provinces were Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) in the northwest and Lesser Poland (Małopolska). The importance of these provinces to the realm was reflected by the fact that the Speaker of the Sejm was supposed to alternate between their provincial deputies (and then the Grand Duchy). Also the Crown Tribunal had two seats: one in Piotrków for Greater Poland, and one in Lublin for Lesser Poland. South of Lesser Poland lay the territories of the former Halicz Ruthenia (Ruś Halicka), the palatines of Wołyń, Bracław, Podole, and Kiev. The latter was often called “Ukraine” (Ukraina). These areas were places of intensive colonization by Polish and local nobles in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and continued to suffer destructive raids by the Tatars from Crimea. The areas of Ukraine originally had a more predominantly Ruthenian/​Orthodox population. However, as the nobles became increasingly Polonized, they converted to Protestantism, Catholicism, or the Uniate faith. In the west of Ukraine, around Lwów and Bełz, the peoples remained more ethnically mixed, with populations of Poles, Germans, and Ruthenians. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, local differences were also evident but not as visibly as in the Crown. The palatines of Vilnius and Żmudź included Lithuanian and Samogitian speaking populations who until the Reformation were predominantly Latin Rite Christians, while Ruthenian speaking and Eastern Orthodox Christian peasants inhabited the other palatines of the Grand Duchy.21 North to Courland and the Grand Duchy—​in today’s Latvia and Estonia—​ were the lands of Livonia (Inflanty). Formally incorporated into the realm in 1569, the Commonwealth’s claims found strong military competition there with Sweden and Muscovy. Most of the province was lost to Sweden by 1621, although a small area of Latgalia—​about 13,000 square kilometers called the “Duchy of Livonia” (Księstwo Inflanckie)—​was incorporated as a separate palatine into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where the Latvian population became Catholic. The Commonwealth had a poorly developed administrative structure. In fact, the Diet (Sejm) was the only body whose competence extended to the whole realm. Any central office-​holder in the realm was essentially doubled: one for the Crown and one for the Grand Duchy. The king had the sole right to nominate to these positions, and all were lifetime appointments. The only effective way to remove a person from one post was to advance them to another. 21

Ibid., 42–​47.

The Land of Many Sects

15

At the most general level, both the Crown and the Grand Duchy were divided into territorial palatines (województwa) that were represented in the Senate by dignitaries called “palatines” (wojewoda). The Crown had twenty-​two palatines, the Grand Duchy had nine, and Livonia had three. Each territorial palatine had captains (starosta grodowy), whose job was to enforce judicial decisions in their areas, to administer royal domains under the king’s jurisdiction, to hear appeals in matters of royal jurisdiction, and to collect taxes and levies. In some parts of the Crown, the palatines’ districts were divided into many regions presided over by captains, while in others there was only one for the whole palatine. In the Grand Duchy, Royal Prussia, and the palatines in Ukraine, the palatine was ex officio the local captain, entrusted with his duties. Political power in the Commonwealth rested solely in the hands of the nobility (szlachta), who carefully guarded their privileges. In principle, all nobles in the realm were equal and save for the aristocratic titles used under the Union of Lublin no other titles were recognized or given. The nobility won significant privileges, including freedom from imprisonment unless by a court order (1430) and the right that no new laws would be passed without their consent (1505). Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries they were given exclusive jurisdiction over the peasants om their estates. Entering the nobility was complicated and increasingly difficult and the nobles were especially hostile to attempts by the Cossacks to sneak into their ranks.22 The Commonwealth’s Parliament—​called the Sejm—​evolved from the earlier Diet of the Kingdom of Poland, which in 1505 obtained a privilege that no new laws would be passed without its consent. The Sejm’s consent was necessary to levy new taxes, ennoble, pass new laws, set foreign policy goals, and fulfill other tasks of governance.23 The Sejm had three estates: the King, the Senate (Senat), and the Chamber of Deputies (Izba Poselska). The monarch sat as a representative of the laws of the Crown and his own prerogatives. The Senate consisted of a limited number of dignitaries, lay senators, and fifteen Roman Catholic bishops. The bishops appeared in the Senate on the eve of the Reformation, to the detriment of the Protestants, and they were never removed from the chamber. The lay senators were divided into two groups: palatines and castellans (kasztelanowie), the latter of lesser rank. In theory, there were 140 senators but those present at any one Sejm never reached that number. There were never any hereditary peers. The Chamber of Deputies had between 22

Ibid., 255–​266. For the development of noble rights see P. Knoll, “Religious Toleration in Sixteenth Century Poland:  Political Realities and Social Customs,” in Louthan, Diveristy, 36–​42. 23 Augustyniak, Historia, 92–​98.

16 

Chapter 2

140 and 170 deputies, 48 of whom came from the Grand Duchy. The majority of deputies were middle-​ranking nobles.24 After 1573 and according to the Articuli Henriciani (Artykuły Henrykowskie), an ordinary Sejm was to be summoned every two years and had a fixed period of six weeks of permitted activity. An extraordinary Sejm could be summoned as needed but could sit for only two weeks. Parliamentary procedure had a few important peculiarities. All laws passed by the Sejm, called “constitutions” (konstytucja), were considered as one, single legislative act. That meant that in order for any law to pass, consent had to be made to all of them in toto. More importantly, according to the principle of liberum veto, all decisions had to be reached unanimously, and opposition to any law by any single deputy would invalidate the work of the entire Sejm and sever it (zerwanie sejmu). This principle was not initially set in stone, but as the seventeenth century progressed a strict interpretation of unanimity gained prominence. In the end, it proved to be the main cause of the demise of the Sejm’s power and authority.25 2.3

The Reformation in Poland and Lithuania before 1548

Polish historiography of the Reformation has for many years had problems deciding how to divide the different stages of the Reformation and how to deal with the twenty or thirty years preceding 1548. As early as 1962, one historian called those decades a preparatory time—​theologically, ideologically, and legally—​for the outbreak of the Reformation. Since these decades have been dealt with extensively elsewhere, the following paragraphs are intended only as a brief introduction to them.26 It is generally acknowledged that the first Reformation events in Poland date to May 3, 1520 when the Polish King Zygmunt i The Old (1506–​1538) issued a decree banning the import and distribution of Martin Luther’s works. The prohibition was issued at the urging of the first papal nuncio in Poland and actually preceded Luther’s excommunication by Pope Leo X. A year later, the nuncio organized a public burning of Luther’s works in Toruń, but allegedly met with a hostile reception. While historians argue about how much of that hostility had a theological basis, the fact of the book burning shows that the royal decree was ineffective and that some of Luther’s tracts were circulating 24 Ibid., 97. 25 Ibid., 100–​103. 26 Kriegseisen, Stosunki, 430–​452.

The Land of Many Sects

17

(at least in the Royal Prussian towns). Conflicts there continued to simmer throughout the 1520s. In 1523, these provisions were repeated, this time threatening Lutherans and those who distributed or propagated his teachings with the death penalty.27 The first openly Lutheran conflict began in January 1525 in Gdańsk, where the city council was overthrown, Lutheran preachers appointed, and liturgical changes such as mass in German introduced. These events met with a swift reaction from King Zygmunt i The Old, who subdued the city on April 17, 1526, had some of the leaders of the revolt executed, and restored Catholicism. The swiftness and brutality of the action does not mean it was caused by religious sentiments—​only a few months before, the same monarch allowed for the secularization of Ducal Prussia and the embrace of its leader, Prince Albrecht Hohenzollern, of Lutheranism. It may be that the monarch’s response was driven in large part by the threat of plebeian uprisings—​which did indeed occur in September of 1525 in Sambia (Ducal Prussia) or Mazowsze. In any case, officially Lutheranism was stamped out, Catholicism restored, and the good and genuinely pious king returned to Cracow.28 For the next decade or so, we hear of incidents of “Lutheranism,” confined mainly to actions such as the breaking of fasts and the making of critical remarks about Catholic clergy. The fight against Lutherans—​real or perceived—​ fell on the shoulders of nuncios and bishops. The monarch’s religious policy was benign: in 1535, for example, he wrote a famous latter to a canon in Breslau, reminding him that he was king of “both the sheep and the goats.” He did, however, issue a decree barring his subjects from studying in Wittenberg. Instead of overt Lutheranism, the 1530s and early 1540s saw a steady growth of anti-​clerical feelings among the Crown’s nobility. Their criticism simmered, exacerbated by the fact that the pious monarch refused to back them up and force the clergy to give up some of their privileges or to restrain them from suing the nobles in ecclesiastical courts. On the eve of the civil war in 1536/​ 1537, the nobles demanded secularizing all clerical land acquired after 1370 and the using the annates sent to Rome for the Kingdom’s defense. With the clergy unwilling to yield to any of these demands and the king unwilling to intervene, these conflicts intensified during that decade.29 The first episodes with clear Reformation overtones come from the early 1540s. The 1535 royal prohibition on studying in Wittenberg had the unintended 27 28 29

Ibid., 430–​434, 442–​443. Ibid., 435–​438. Ibid., 445–​446; W.  Urban, “Sprawy kościelne na sejmach i sejmikach odbywanych w Małopolsce 1535–​1548,” Zeszyty Naukowe WSP w Opolu, Historia, 46 (1988): 193–​201.

18 

Chapter 2

consequence of directing scores of young nobles from Poland and Lithuania to the Lutheran university in Königsberg. When they returned in the 1540s, they were not necessarily committed Lutherans, but their critique of the Catholic Church had become more pronounced. It is in the 1540s that we hear of the nobles refusing to pay church tithes. Many, though not all, of the early instigators of those actions had studied in Königsberg or other Protestant universities. Second, despite his deep personal piety and attachment to the old Church, King Zygmunt i The Old in later years began to think that the solution to solving the religious controversies lay in a church-​wide council. In the meantime, he was willing to tolerate temporary local accommodations in religious matters: in 1544, the committee he appointed to settle the simmering religious ferment in Gdańsk officially allowed for Lutheran services (though not sacraments) at the side altar of St. Mary’s Church. As Wojciech Kriegseisen noted, making the main church in the largest city of Royal Prussia a Lutheran-​Catholic simultaneum was “a demonstration of [the] tolerance of Lutheranism in Royal Prussia.” It was not just limited to Royal Prussia: in the mid and late 1540s, we hear of the first Protestant congregations formed in nobles’ residences in Lesser Poland in Aleksandrowice, Jazłowiec, Krzęcice, Pełsznica, and elsewhere. In 1545, the aging king reissued his prohibition of publically spreading Lutheran heresy but with a very important caveat: the key words were “publically spreading,” and thus through the back door, freedom of conscience was now given.30 Third, the moderate Polish Catholic bishops still hoped to pursue a course of liturgical and organizational reform within the bounds of the Catholic Church that they hoped would keep their link to Rome and satisfy most of the Protestants’ theological demands. The presence of other Christians in the realm where clerical marriage, mass in the vernacular, and communion in both kinds were allowed, made the idea of permitting them in the Latin Church not as outrageously heretical as these demands were when Reformation broke out in Western Europe. These fledgling plans, often based on the ideas of Erasmus of Rotterdam or on generous irenism, were discussed well into the 1550s.31 Fourth, the court of the “young king,” Zygmunt ii August in Lithuania, where he resided from 1544, began to have a reputation for toleration of “heresy.” Already in 1537, the king was suspected of harboring Protestant sympathies, and some of his chaplains later became Protestants. While he never left the old Church, he was known to harbor non-​orthodox religious ideas about communion in both kinds, the invocation of saints and purgatory. He soon surrounded 30 Kriegseisen, Stosunki, 446–​448; M. Ptaszyński, Reformacja w Polsce a dziedzictwo Erazma z Rotterdamu (Warszawa: 2018), 256–​293. 31 Ibid.

The Land of Many Sects

19

himself with Erasmian-​inclined Catholics or outright Protestants, and Protestantism began to spread in the Grand Duchy too.32 When, therefore, the old king Zygmunt i died, on April 1, 1548, and his son made his way to Cracow from Vilnius, many thought or hoped it would mark the beginning of the realm’s Reformation. The reality proved to be more complicated: the monarch refused to make a clear declaration in religious matters. These were soon subsumed by the scandal caused by the king’s secret marriage to Barbara Radziwiłłówna (1520–​1551), which caused uproar in both Poland and Lithuania. With the Protestants deeply divided on the issue, and the monarch determined to have his beloved spouse recognized and crowned as queen, whatever Protestant sympathies he may have had receeded in importance, and the 1548 Sejm was consumed with the issue of royal marriage, rather than religious matters. It was not until 1550 that the monarch and the realm had to give them their attention.33 32 Ibid., 359–​364; Kriegseisen, Stosunki, 448–​452. 33 Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 360–​386.

pa rt 2 The Reformed Churches

∵

­c hapter 3

Church Polity 3.1

The Early Years: 1548–​1595

The Czech Brethren traced their roots from Jan Hus and his movement in the fifteenth century.1 In 1548, after being banished from Bohemia, the refugees passed through Greater Poland, where they received a warm welcome. In 1551, one of their pastors held a clandestine service in Poznań, during which he admitted two women from the magnate Ostroróg family into his church.2 These were sisters of Jakub Ostroróg (c. 1516–​1568). Under their influence, Ostroróg agreed to hear the Brethren minister preach, and by early 1554 he had joined the Brethren. His conversion set an example: soon members of other senatorial families, as well as local nobles, joined the Brethren, turning over the churches on their estates to them. By 1573, the number of Brethren congregations in Greater Poland stood at around sixty. The headquarters of the Church were in the town of Ostroróg, the seat of Jakub Ostroróg’s estates, where the Brethren’s bishop also resided and which had a substantive library and a school.3 The Brethren Church had its own polity that was episcopal in nature. The Church was governed by bishops, who were called “seniors” (seniorzy). These were elected by the clergy through a secret written ballot. Active bishops ordained the seniors-​elect by the laying on of hands, a principle of apostolic succession the Brethren took very seriously. The bishops had suffragans called “konseniors” (konseniorzy). The bishops ordained ministers, presided over synods, visited parishes, and so on. The clergy—​and the clergy only—​formed the synod of the Church, which made all the important decisions without the participation of lay members. Ministers were expected to remain celibate and to support themselves by manual labor.4

1 J. Bidlo, Jednota Bratrská v prvnim vyhnanství, (Praha: 1900–​1932), vol. i–​i v, passim; C. Altwood, The theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Commenius (University Park:  2009), 214–​240. 2 J. Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce w XVI i XVII wieku (Warszawa: 1997), 23–​25. 3 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 53–​55; J. Łukaszewicz, O kościołach braci czeskich w dawnej Wielkopolsce (Poznań: 1835), passim; H. Merczyng, Zbory i senatorowie protestanccy w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, (Warszawa: 1905), passim. 4 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 11–​18.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_004

24 

Chapter 3

In 1558, Jerzy Izrael (d. 1588) was ordained as the first senior for the Polish Churches and settled in Ostroróg. In 1579, a scandal ensued when his fellow senior Jan Lorenc married, breaking the Brethren’s celibacy requirement. The elderly Izrael tried to have him censured, but the 1579 synod supported Lorenc. Offended, Izrael left for Moravia, and Lorenc remained as the only bishop in Greater Poland. The spread of the Czech Brethren to Poland entailed the creation of a new province of the Church, and quickly revealed that the Brethren would have to adjust some of their customs to Polish realities. The disappearance of clerical celibacy was the first of many such changes.5 The seniors held great power and exerted considerable influence among the clergy and faithful. Throughout the first 50 years in Poland, they tried to maintain a distinct identity for the Brethren. Jerzy Izrael was a dominant figure: erudite, certain of his authority, a great organizer, and an excellent preacher. But if the record of his 1556 visit to Lesser Poland is to be trusted, it is probable that the Reformed nobles in Lesser Poland found not just the episcopal polity he represented, but also him personally, to be insufferable.6 Izrael’s colleague Lorenc was more accommodating, which was probably why the Brethren ministers backed him in the conflict over clerical marriage—​ apart from their obvious desire to abandon celibacy. The third Brethren senior in Poland, Symeon Teofil Turnowski (d. 1608), was another strong personality. He was educated at the University of Wittenberg, was ordained to the ministry in 1573, and was careful, for the rest of his life, to keep the Brethren an equal distance from Lutherans and Calvinists. He was an energetic church leader and enforced ecclesiastical discipline on the clergy under his care. Thanks to his rigorous leadership, the Brethren stayed clear of Unitarians. Turnowski was also a dedicated defender of the Sandomir Consensus, which, while repudiating Unitarianism, at the same time espoused a vague understanding of the Lord’s Supper, leaving both liturgical and polity questions open, which perfectly suited the Brethren and his personal theological inclinations.7 With a well-​functioning episcopal polity, the Brethren bishops were resistant to the idea of involving lay members in church affairs. This was an especially delicate matter, as Protestantism in the Crown never received legal recognition and depended solely on the support of the nobility. In 1560, the Brethren did choose lay seniors to assist the senior during his visitations to

5 asr iv, 58–​62; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 65–​69. 6 asr i, 82–​161. 7 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 44–​49; H. Gmiterek, “Szymon Teofil Turnowski w obronie zgody sandomierskiej,” Annales UMSC, sec. F. 31 (1976): 13–​40.

Church Polity

25

congregations. The lay seniors’ duties were vague and Izrael viewed their very existence as redundant. Not surprisingly, they were soon forgotten.8 The Brethren’s episcopal polity was most visible during their 1570 negotiations with Lutherans in Poznań. There, the clergy of both denominations simply locked themselves in a room and handled the talks, while the noble lay delegates waited patiently outside for the outcome—​something unthinkable in Lesser Poland.9 The idea of lay seniors was revisited in 1573 and was intended to bring the Brethren more closely in line with their Reformed peers in Lesser Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Lay members were invited to join in during the third day of the synod, when the elections for lay elders were held. An impressive 24 lay elders were elected, all of them nobles. However, unlike their clerical colleagues, they were only charged and not ordained, and held no power in the Church.10 The effects of the 1573 synod were minimal, and during the June 1582 synod, the ministers remarked: “Regarding the duties of lay seniors, experience shows it to be difficult to use them fruitfully in governance [of the Church].”11 When Turnowski was elected bishop in 1583, he stopped inviting lay people to synods altogether. In 1602, when a new generation of clergy petitioned him about inviting lay seniors to the synods, he replied curtly, “Any patron wishing to come to our synod always had and still has the liberty to do so.”12 As far as he was concerned, lay elders were of little importance, so why would they need to attend? While the Czech Brethren began as an episcopal church, the first years of Calvinism in Lesser Poland can only be described as accidental congregationalism. The year 1550 is acknowledged as the beginning of the Reformation movement in Lesser Poland.13 Earlier that year, an Italian renegade priest, Francesco Stancaro (1501–​1574), found refuge in the town of Pińczów, the property of Mikołaj Oleśnicki. At Stancaro’s urging, in October of 1550 Oleśnicki expelled the Pauline monks from their convent in the town, seized all their properties, and, allegedly, purged the town’s church of altars, statues, and relics, turning it over for Protestant worship. Later in November, Oleśnicki called what is considered to be the first Protestant synod held in Poland. It was a very

8 asr iv, 58–​62. 9 asr ii, 307. 10 asr iv, 27–​28. Another manuscript lists 25 lay seniors ibid., 33. 11 Ibid., 83. 12 Ibid., 174. 13 Some congregations were established in private estates in the 1540s. Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 392–​397.

26 

Chapter 3

small gathering: in addition to Oleśnicki, only six other nobles are listed, as well as six reform-​minded priests, though the manuscript suggests more were in attendance as spectators. Stancaro presided and persuaded those present to adopt the 1543 Cologne Confession. Its moderate tone appealed to those assembled and the Lord’s Supper was celebrated for the first time.14 The beginning of the Reformation in Lesser Poland was short-​lived, however. In February 1551, King Zygmunt ii August ordered Oleśnicki to return the property of the monks and expel the ministers. Oleśnicki relented, and the preachers dispersed: Stancaro fled to Königsberg, Sylvius to Silesia, and Cruciger to Greater Poland, while others went to Lithuania. The Protestants referred to it as “dispersio ministrorum.” But the Catholics’s success was illusory. Oleśnicki’s actions seemed to have broken a psychological barrier and, from the spring of 1551 onwards, scores of nobles began to imitate what he had done. In the summer of 1551, Oleśnicki once again expelled the monks from Pińczów (this time for good), installed a Protestant minister, and opened the first Polish Reformed school in the former monastery.15 The ministers’ dispersal completely decentralized the Reformation movement in the province and no synods were called until 1554. Thus, for the next few years, the Reformation in Lesser Poland was a highly erratic movement. During this process, a reform-​inclined nobleman would expel the priest and turn over the church to a minister. The Protestant nobles’ commitment level varied. Some, like Jan Firlej (d. 1574), the castellan of Cracow, were well read in theology and highly committed to the cause. Stanisław Szafraniec (d. 1598), the owner of Secemin, allowed a Catholic priest to remain in town and minister to the Catholic population, but turned over the town’s church to reformers and founded a school. Other nobles found this to be an opportunity to vent their anger against the Catholic Church. In 1565, Zbigniew Sienieński (d. c.  1567), sacked the church in Rymanów, trampled the consecrated host, and used the holy oils to wax his shoes. He then expelled the Catholic priest and installed a “minister” of some sort, but from then on took no part in the Reformation movement.16 14

15 16

asr i, 2; H.  Gmiterek, Franciszek Stankar (1501–​1574), PSB, vol. 42 (2003), 158–​163; M. Pielas, Oleśniccy herbu Dębno w XVI-​XVII wieku. Studium z dziejów zamożnej szlachty doby nowożytnej (Kielce: 2007), 151–​156; M. Taplin, The Italian Reformers and the Zurich Church, c. 1540–​1620 (Ashgate: 2003), 171–​181; W. Urban, “Stancarus Francis,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia, vol. 4, 107–​108. asr i, 2–​3; Pielas, Oleśniccy, 156–​158. I. Rolska, Firlejowie Leopardzi. Studium nad patronatem i fundacjami artystycznymi w XVI-​ XVII wieku (Lublin: 2009), 46–​61, 259–​268; I. Kaniewska, Stanisław Szafraniec (ok.1530/​ 1-​1598), PSB, vol. 46 (2009), 471–​479; H. Kowalska, “Stanisław Szafraniec z Pieskowej

Church Polity

27

In 1554, a synod was called in Słomniki. Those few who were present now rejected Stancaro’s ideas of how to reform the Church, but proposed little in the way of alteratives. Only “some of the brethren”17 expressed interest in the Czech Brethren in Greater Poland. Later the same year, another synod was called to consolidate the movement. The only visible improvement in the movement’s coherence was that Feliks Cruciger was elected as superintendent of the new Church, probably for a term of one year. In terms of polity, the churches of Lesser Poland were in the wilderness, or functionally congregational.18 In 1555 during the Sejm in Cracow, some of the church leaders in Lesser Poland approached Jakub Ostroróg and expressed interest in a union with the Czech Brethren. In March 1555, Jerzy Izrael and Rokita met with a few ministers from Lesser Poland to discuss the proposal. The Brethren were cautious, while the clergy of Lesser Poland were eager to proceed. Their enthusiasm prevailed and on August 31, 1555, both parties signed the Union of Koźminek. The Church of Lesser Poland agreed to adopt the discipline, structure, theology, and liturgy of the Czech Brethren. The Brethren promised to help the Church of Lesser Poland to implement these changes. It is clear from both the proceedings and later documents that it was the Lesser Polish ministers, and not the nobles, who pushed for this union. For them, the episcopal structure, liturgy, and theology of the Brethren gave their Church a clear framework around which they could unite.19 However, those ministers represented only one fraction of a highly decentralized and diverse movement. This was made abundantly clear during the Lesser Poland synod in Secemin in January of 1556. The nobleman Hieronim Filipowski chaired the synod—​a notable difference from the exclusively clerical synods of the Brethren. On first glance, those assembled tacitly approved the Union of Koźminek by re-​electing Feliks Cruciger as their superintendent and adding three konseniors, mirroring the structure of the Brethren. On the other hand, the nobles decided that the reformation of the Polish Church should proceed under the guidance of the Polish king and well-​known western European reformers. It was clear that a substantive number of ministers and nobles were now looking to Switzerland for guidance on how to organize the new Church.20 Skały,” OiRwP 3 (1959), 99–​131; F. Kiryk, Zbigniew Sienieński (zm. po 1567), PSB, vol. 37 (1996), 192–​193. 17 asr i, 3. 18 Ibid., 4. 19 Ibid., 18–​45; H. Gmiterek, Bracia czescy a kalwini w Rzeczpospolitej. Połowa XVI—​połowa XVII wieku. Studium porównawcze (Lublin: 1987), 15–​22. 20 asr i, 46–​52; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 487–​493.

28 

Chapter 3

The next synod was held in April 1556 in Pińczów. It was dominated not by clergy but by the nobility, who now insisted that Calvin, Beza, and Jan Łaski be invited to Poland to reform the Church. Lay seniors, now called “deacons,” were elected from among the nobility. This was a step toward a presbyterian church structure, and an attempt to fashion the Church on the models Łaski was proposing. The Brethren’s Confession was accepted, but those assembled insisted that a new, “better confession” be written in Polish and presented to the king. In fact, those assembled had reservations about almost everything their clergy had agreed to in the Union of Koźminek. The frustrated Brethren delegate wrote “and thus we have seen, that some of those lords and ministers hold this Koźminek union, as if an eel by its tail, and treat it lightly.”21 Even Calvin’s letter approving the Union did not convince those assembled, and following a disastrous visit by the Brethren bishops in December 1556, the Koźminek agreement was practically dead.22 Jan Łaski’s (1499–​1560) return in 1557 changed everything. Though never given any formal leadership position in the Church, his name appeared on the proceedings even before the superintendent’s. Born into an illustrious family and related to many magnates active in the Reformation movement, Łaski commanded respect for both his theological knowledge and personal connections. He is credited with the Lesser Poland Church’s move towards a presbyterian structure during the August 1557 synod in Pińczów. There, six lay seniors were chosen from among the nobles and charged with working with the superintendent on maintaining discipline in the church. A separate office of deacons was instituted to oversee the church’s finances and schools. This involvement of the laity in church governance was made, as the synod’s records state, “exemplo Ecclesiarum Helveticarum.”23 Under Łaski’s influence, a new entity called the Colloquy of Seniors (Konwokacja Seniorów) came into being. It was to meet twice a year and prepare materials and issues for the synods. This was a de facto repudiation of the episcopal structure of the Brethren.24 During the next few years, Łaski concentrated on an attempt to produce a confession that would have united the Polish Protestant movement. As early

21 22 23 24

asr i, 73. Ibid., 53–​78, 82–​171; H. Barycz, “Meandry Lismaninowskie,” OiRwP 16 (1971): 37–​66. asr ii, 35. asr i, 219, 238–​239; H. Gmiterek, “Jan Łaski a problem unii kalwinistów małopolskich z braćmi czeskimi w XVI wieku,” in ed. W. Kriegseisen and P. Salwa, Jan Łaski 1499–​1560. W pięćsetlecie urodzin (Warszawa: 2001), 27–​38; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 536–​544, 571–​ 578; H. Kowalska, Działalność reformatorska Jana Łaskiego w Polsce 1556–​1560 (Wrocław-​ Warszawa-​Kraków: 1969), passim.

Church Polity

29

as 1557, the local synod of Zator with German-​, Polish-​, and Dutch-​speaking members—​not yet a part of the Lesser Poland Church—​accepted Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession as their theological standard. Other districts followed suit.25 However, it is important to note that Krzysztof Trecy, who translated the Second Helvetic into Polish as the Sandomir Confession, was very creative in his treatment of the more controversial issues, most notably the Lord’s Supper. There, he skillfully edited passages that could have raised the ire of the Lutherans, famously translating Bullinger’s word “spiritualitater” for “truly,” or avoiding the word altogether, thus making the Sandomir Confession more amenable to the Lutherans and the Czech Brethren.26 This was convenient for Łaski, who tried to bring them into a single Protestant Church. With such a monumental task, his main focus was neither church structure nor liturgy, but rather a theological unity to bind all three traditions together.27 Any success Łaski might have had in consolidating Lesser Poland’s Reformed Church collapsed with the Unitarian controversy. Around 1559 Stancaro began to preach his interpretation of Christ’s role as mediator between humanity and God. In short, he claimed that a mediator necessarily means a subordinate nature to the one with whom he mediates. Since Christ could not be inferior to God, he could therefore be a mediator in his human, and not divine nature. The synod of Wodzisław condemned his work in June of 1559, but his noble patron supported him vigorously. Stancaro has been described by one historian as “a man of great learning and attractive eloquence, but withal ambitious, self-​conceited, arrogant, aggressive, quarrelsome, intolerant, insolent, abusive, violent, obstinate.”28 He saw his interpretation as the only truly Trinitarian one and accused all his opponents of being heretics and Arians. He then appeared at the synod in Pińczów, where he tried to debate with Łaski, who in exasperation threw a Bible at his head. The synod once again condemned Stancaro and the Polish ministers solicited help from the Zurich theologians. However, by

25

T. Wotschke, Der Breifwechsel der Schweizer mit der Polen (Leipzig: 1908), 281–​282, 281–​ 282; Gmiterek, Bracia czescy, 36. 26 J. Lehman, Konfesja Sandomierska na tle innych konfesji w Polsce w XVI wieku (Warszawa:  1937), 254–​ 257, 260; Gmiterek, Bracia czescy, 88; D.  Petkunas, Holy Communion Rites in the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed Agendas of the sixteenth and early seventeenth Centuries (Klaipeda: 2007), 109; M. Ptaszyński, “Grzeczny dysydent? O pracy Dariusza M. Bryćko, The Irenic Calvinism of Daniel Kałaj (d. 1681). A study in the History and theology of the Polish-​Lithuanian Reformation,” OiRwP 58 (2014): 182–​183. 27 H. Kowalska-​Kossobudzka, “Wpływ Jana Łaskiego na kształtowanie się reformacyjnego Kościoła w Małopolsce,” in ed. Kriegseisen and Salwa, Jan Łaski, 15–​26. 28 Wilbur, A History, 297.

30 

Chapter 3

the time the reply came, Łaski had died (1560), and the charismatic Stancaro had built up a considerable following among the nobles.29 An anonymous hand wrote in the margins of the proceedings of the September 1560 synod of Książ “the saying is true: where there are many [people] there is much confusion.”30 It became the scene of a fierce confrontation between the nobles and the clergy. The latter tried to force the nobles into committing more money to the church’s needs and to giving ministers more influence in the church’s affairs “so it won’t be said about Lord Lasocki and Lord Filipowski (by God’s grace true lovers of the Gospel) that whatever they want, so it comes to pass.”31 To make their point, all the ministers resigned from their offices. This move hopelessly backfired. The nobles, irritated by the way in which the clergy had handled the Stancaro affair, now refused to accept the resignations. After electing a lay synod president, the nobles announced to the stunned clergy that it would be the nobles who would decide on the exact status of seniors and superintendents. When Cruciger read out Stancaro’s condemnation letter from Zurich and tried to have him excommunicated, the nobles ignored the letter and re-​submitted Stancaro’s case back to Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, and Vermigli for reconsideration. They retained Feliks Cruciger as superintendent, but now added Francesco Lismanin and George Blandrata as his konseniors and three nobles—​Oleśnicki, Łukowski, and Ossoliński—​were elected as lay elders. Given the latter’s anti-​clerical tirades during the synod, it was a clear slap in the face for the ministers. Further, the nobles decided that all church offices were to be held for one year only, until the next synod. As a token of good will to the humiliated clergy, the nobles promised to turn over any ecclesiastical property they held for the benefit of the church.32 The Stancaro affair slowly died down.33 But his writings had the unintended consequence of causing a number of ministers to question not just Christ’s role

29

asr i, 304–​318; Kowalska-​Kossobudzka, “Wpływ Jana Łaskiego,” 15–​26; S. Lubieniecki, History of the Polish Reformation:  and nine related documents (ed. George Huntson Williams), (Minneapolis: 1995), 175–​177; J. Miller, “The Origins of Polish Arianism,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985):  229–​256; Taplin, The Italian, 171–​181; Wilbur, A History, 297–​303. 30 asr ii, 33. 31 Ibid., 51. 32 Ibid., 32–​68; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 583–​594. 33 Stancaro created for a while a schismatic Reformed Church around Dubiecko but given his character traits his support waned. By the end of his life he and his last followers reconciled with the Reformed Church. Wilbur, A History, 301–​302; G. H. Williams, “Stancaro’s Schismatic Reformed Church centered in Dubets’ko in Ruthnia 1559/​60–​1571,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3–​4 (1979): 954–​957.

Church Polity

31

as a mediator, but the whole doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Blandrata and Lismanin, whom the nobles nominated as konsenior, had been working discreetly since 1559, reinforcing these anti-​Trinitarian sentiments. In January 1561, the Pińczów synod finally condemned Stancaro but by then Blandrata’s and Lismanin’s theology had come under the suspicion of some Calvinists. During the September 1561 synod, they both officially disclaimed having any Unitarian beliefs; however, in October of 1561, Calvin wrote to the Lesser Poland Church warning its members about Blandrata’s heresies. Gathered at their December 1561 synod, the Lesser Poland Reformed requested that Blandrata write his own confession and submit it to the next synod. When he did so during the March 1562 synod of Książ, those assembled were unable to reach any decision. Tensions must have been running high because no formal minutes were kept for the next thirty years. Unitarian influence spread particularly among the ministers, and during the April 1562 synod in Pińczów, a majority of them sided with Blandrata. A short confession of faith was published and sent to the Swiss and Strasbourg churches together with a letter defending Blandrata. The synod also ordered clergy to cease using philosophical words to describe the doctrine of the Trinity, and to use only the Apostles’ Creed in worship.34 By the time Blandrata left Poland in 1563, he had led both the old superintendent Cruciger and his successor, Stanisław Lutomirski (Łaski’s son-​in-​law), as well as the majority of clergy, into Unitarianism. Of the respected ministers, only Jakub Sylvius (d. 1583) remained Trinitarian, with a handful of clergy remaining Calvinist. As Maciej Ptaszyński aptly noted “these orthodox Calvinists in fact separated from the Lesser Poland Church, which the anti-​Trinitarians took over.”35 The Reformed had no choice but to turn to the nobility for ­leadership.36 The rebuilding of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church began during the meeting of the Calvinist ministers in December 1562 in Cracow. There, the three influential ministers Stanisław Sarnicki (1532–​1597), Paweł Gilowski (c. 1534–​1595), and Jakub Sylvius presented a Trinitarian confession of faith, which was signed by many nobles and Cracow burgers. They received the necessary backing of German and Swiss theologians—​Calvin himself even

34

asr ii, 124–​133; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 593–​597; Taplin, The Italian, 182–​192; Wilbur, A History, 309–​310. 35 Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 605; Wilbur, A History, 327. 36 H. Barycz, Franciszek Lismanin (1504–​1566), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 465–​470; A. Biedrzycka and J.  Szturc, Jakub Sylvius (zm. po 1583), PSB, v.  46 (2009), 215–​218; H.  Kowalska, Stanisław Lutomirski (ok.1520–​1575), PSB, vol. 18 (1973), 144–​146; S.  Szczotka, Feliks Cruciger (zm. 1563), PSB, vol. 4 (1938), 107–​109.

32 

Chapter 3

wrote a short but firm polemic with the anti-​Trinitarian work by Grzegorz Paweł Tabula de Trinitate. Calvin’s work was published in Cracow and presented during the Cracow synod of the Calvinists in May 1563. Sarnicki later collected all the opinions of the Western theologians against the Polish Unitarians in one book.37 During the years 1563–​1570, synods were not called and the office of the Calvinist church superintendent remained vacant. The Calvinists focused their energy on debating the Polish Brethren while working to keep them away from the faithful. The Reformed Church’s situation in Lesser Poland was difficult, as families, churches, and ministers changed their confessional allegiances frequently up until the late 1590s. The Reformed needed all their strength to battle the Unitarian Polish Brethren.38 In this context, both the Consensus of Sandomir and the Confession of Sandomir of 1570 should be viewed for what they were. The situation of the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland in 1570 was uncertain. The Confession’s theological content has been analyzed elsewhere,39 but it should be stressed that the Lesser Polish Calvinists were flexible in theological matters. For them, the fundamental question was not just how to present a single confession to the king, but more importantly how to show that they were not the Unitarian Polish Brethren. For the Lesser Poland Reformed Church, the language of the Sandomir Confession regarding the Lord’s Supper and its silence on ecclesiastical and liturgical matters was a cornerstone on which they could start rebuilding as a Reformed Church. The Consensus provided them with the much-​needed help of Lutherans, who in the end would not accept the Sandomir Confession but gave them additional Trinitarian legitimacy. The silence of both the Confession and Consensus on ecclesiastical polity was necessary to secure the aid of the Czech Brethren. The Reformed, led by palatines Stanisław Myszkowski and Piotr Zborowski, were shrewd politicians, who without giving up the lay control of the Lesser Poland Church, achieved a fragile unity and the cooperation of the other two churches. Krzysztof Trecy’s (1530–​1591) tour around European universities in support of the Sandomir Consensus can thus be viewed not solely as

37

asr ii, 143; H.  Kowalska and J.  Sikorski, Stanisław Sarnicki (1532–​1597), PSB, vol. 35 (1994), 217–​223; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 615–​620; S. Szczotka, Paweł Gilowski (ok.1534–​ 1595), PSB, vol. 7 (1948), 471. 38 A. Biedrzycka and J.  Szturc, Jakub Sylvius (zm.po 1583), PSB, 215–​218; A.  Kawecka-​ Gryczowa, “Jakób Sylvius a rozłam w zborze małopolskim,” RwP 9–​ 10 (1937–​ 1939): 28–​63; Lubieniecki, History, 188–​205, 212–​219, 244–​269. 39 Lehman, Konfesja, passim.

Church Polity

33

aimed at securing backing for the endeavor, but also as rebuilding the badly damaged orthodox Protestant credentials of the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland.40 A vivid example of the fluid nature of Lesser Poland’s Church around and after 1570 is the story of its organization. Protestant congregations (zbory) began to be organized in the 1550s and this trend continued into the mid-​1580s. Their exact number is unknown since we lack the minutes of all the regional synods. It is assumed, however, that by the end of the sixteenth century Lesser Poland had at least 260 Reformed and 52 Polish Brethren congregations.41 The Reformed Church’s erratic growth in Lesser Poland mirrored the haphazard evolution of its organizational structure. Originally, it consisted of loosely linked congregations, gathered together in synods: one for Lesser Poland proper, and one for the Lublin area. In 1560, the Lesser Poland churches were divided into nine districts, without those in the palatines of Lublin, Ruś, Podole, or Wołyń. This division was reorganized only three months later, during the January 1561 synod, which created five districts with forty-​one congregations—​again, this still did not include any of the regions mentioned above. During the April 1570 synod in Sandomir, the Lesser Poland Church was reorganized yet again—​this time into seven districts. Even then, the Reformed churches in Kujawy, Lublin, Chełm, Bełz, and Ruś were not included. This fact is startling given that in the Lublin area alone there were at least forty-​five Reformed congregations and the Kujawy Calvinists were divided into three districts. Around 1570, the polity of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church could be best described as “presbygationist”—​a de facto congregationalism moving slowly towards a Presbyterian structure.42 While the Lesser Poland Church was integrating and disintegrating back and forth, the Reformation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania followed another path. The Grand Duchy had been formally Christianized only in 1386 and, 40

asr ii, 251–​304; W. Sławiński, Toruński Synod Generalny 1595 roku (Warszawa: 2002), 22–​60; Gmiterek, Bracia czescy, 35–​36. 41 Merczyng, Zbory, 13–​14, 17–​18; J. Tazbir, “Społeczny i terytorialny zasięg polskiej reformacji,” KH 82 (1975): 723–​735. 42 asr ii, 38–​40, 55–​60, 76–​81, 270–​271; asr iii, xiv plus map appendix at the back of the book; S.  Tworek, “Z zagadnień organizacji zborów kalwińskich w Małopolsce w XVI-​XVII wieku,” Rocznik Lubelski 8 (1965):  63–​75; Gmiterek, Bracia czescy, 145–​146; A. Kossowski, Protestantyzm w Lublinie i w lubelskiem w XVI w XVII wieku (Lublin: 1933), 85–​96; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 573, calls the polity “synodal.” While he is right in noting the increasing influence of the synods, I still think the best description of the polity is to call it “congregational” before 1570s, and then “presbygationist” until the beginning of the seventeenth century.

34 

Chapter 3

by the 1550s, the Latin Church had made modest inroads into the Lithuanian countryside. The Reformed Church in Lithuania owed much to the magnate Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black (1515–​1565).43 Reputed to have had Protestant inclinations as early as the 1540s, Radziwiłł established the first Protestant congregation in 1553 in Brześć Litewski and installed as minister Szymon Zacjusz (c.1507–​c.1577), a Reform-​minded cleric who fled Lesser Poland during the “dispersio ministrorum.” By 1555, Radziwiłł had gone over to the Calvinist camp and he established a Reformed church in his palace in Vilnius in 1557. His cousins, other magnates, and nobles at his court followed him into the Calvinist fold, establishing Calvinist congregations on their estates throughout the Grand Duchy.44 The lack of sources from the Lithuanian synods from before 1611 does not allow us to know the exact number of Reformed churches founded by 1570, but at least 250 may have been established.45 The Lithuanian Reformed Church was organized into two separate districts: Vilnius and Żmudź, each with its own superintendent. Delegates from both districts met at least once a year for a general synod. There was no general superintendent and both a pastor and layman co-​chaired synods. Radziwiłł the Black had a heavy hand in dealing with church affairs and often overrode the opinion of his superintendent. While this did not help the independence of the Church, it did produce a unified structure and liturgy to a far greater degree than in Lesser Poland. Because Radziwiłł the Black did not speak Lithuanian and many pastors were refugees from Lesser Poland, the Lithuanian Reformed Church adopted Polish as its language of business and liturgy from the beginning. In 1563, Radziwiłł the Black underwrote the costs of printing the first Bible in Polish in Brześć, known as the ‘Radziwiłł Bible’ or ‘Brest Bible’ (Biblia Brzeska). The proximity of the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland meant that its theological quibbles soon began to spill over into the Lithuanian Church. When rumors about Blandrata reached Duke Radziwiłł the Black, he wrote to Calvin defending the Italian and vouching for his theological orthodoxy. Calvin was not impressed and wrote a strongly worded reply to the Lithuanian Church. This alienated the 43 H. Lulewicz, Mikołaj Radziwiłł zwany Czarnym (1515–​1565), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 335–​347. 44 E. Dubas-​Urwanowicz, “The last two of the Jagiellons and Radziwiłłs. Between Cooperation and Opposition,” in ed. M. Markiewicz and R. Skowron, Faworyci i Opozycjoniści. Król a elity polityczne w Rzeczpospolitej XV-​XVIII wieku (Kraków: 2006), 135–​148; M. Liedke, Od prawosławia do katolicyzmu. Ruscy możni i szlachta Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego wobec wyznań reformacyjnych (Białystok: 2004), passim. 45 S. Tworek, “Z zagadnień liczebności zborów kalwińskich na Litwie,” OiRwP 17 (1972): 207–​ 214; Merczyng, Zbory, passim.

Church Polity

35

duke, who kept the letter secret. Instead, in 1563, he convened a synod in Mordy, where the majority of the Lithuanian ministers sided with the Unitarians from Lesser Poland. Radziwiłł the Black now began to remove Calvinist ministers, including the superintendent Zacjusz, and replaced them with Unitarians.46 Radziwiłł the Black’s death in 1565 saved the Lithuanian Reformed Church from becoming Unitarian. His mantle of patron was taken over by his cousin Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Red (1512–​1584), a staunch Calvinist. He had to proceed carefully and the shift back to Calvinism was gradual.47 Radziwiłł the Red’s efforts to reinstate Calvinism as the leading religious force in the Grand Duchy were thwarted by two family-​related events. First, the Unitarians found a powerful benefactor in his nephew, Jan Kiszka (d. 1592).48 Second, despite Black’s sons having been sent to Protestant universities in Germany, they all converted to Roman Catholicism. Scores of other nobles would follow their example as the sixteenth century drew to its close.49 Radziwiłł the Red did all he could to strengthen the Lithuanian Reformed Church. In March 1570, he called a colloquy in Vilnius to unite the Lutherans and the Calvinists against Catholics and Unitarians. In June 1578, he presided over another colloquy between Lutherans and Calvinists in Vilnius, where they grudgingly re-​affirmed their 1570 union and more willingly repudiated both transubstantiation and Unitarianism. His importance is manifest in the fact that he was the third person to sign the agreement, together with another magnate and the two Reformed superintendents in Lithuania. His signature guaranteed the compliance of the Lithuanian Reformed.50 3.2

Growing Together: 1595–​1630s

By the 1570s only one of the three Reformed Churches was organizationally sound. The Brethren were the most coherent theologically, yet their episcopal structure made them unusual. The Lithuanian Reformed were Presbyterian in structure and, like the Lesser Poland Church, were busy purging the Unitarians

46 T. Kempa, Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł „Sierotka” (1549–​ 1616) wojewoda wileński, (Warszawa: 2000), 21–​24. 47 H. Lulewicz, Mikołaj Radziwiłł zwany Rudym (1512–​1584), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 321–​335; Sławiński, Toruński, 74–​77; Wilbur, A History, 329–​330. 48 J. Tazbir, Jan Kiszka (zm. 1592), PSB, vol. 12 (1966–​67), 507–​508. 49 H. Lulewicz, Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł zwany Sierotką (1549–​1616), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 349–​361; Kempa, Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł Sierotka, 40–​48. 50 Sławiński, Toruński, 74–​77.

36 

Chapter 3

from their ranks. The Lesser Poland Church—​somewhere between congregationalism and presbyterianism—​was the weakest in terms of structure. The Sandomir Confession provided a much-​needed theological boost to re-​assert its identity as a Trinitarian denomination. All three Churches spent the next twenty-​five years in futile attempts to bring the Lutherans on board and to create one Protestant Church in Poland-​Lithuania.51 It took the Toruń General Synod in 1595 to make all three Reformed bodies realize that the Polish Lutherans were leaving the Sandomir Consensus behind, and that it was time for them to fully embrace the subtle Calvinism of the Sandomir Confession. The Lutheran immigrants in early seventeenth century Cracow recognized this also, and saw the Sandomir Confession as a Reformed document, preferring to it the Augsburg Confession, or even Formula Concordia, which they perceived as more antithetical to the Reformed. Politically, the tide began to turn against the Protestants under King Zygmunt iii Waza too. The Calvinists’ old benefactors began to die in the 1580s and 1590s, and their children began to convert to Catholicism. Despite these developments, the Reformed Churches in the Commonwealth began consolidating. In 1595, following a thirty-​year vacancy, the Lesser Poland Reformed Church elected Franciszek Jezierski (d. 1616/​1617) as general superintendent. In 1602, his one-​year renewable term was changed to three years.52 In 1608, the energetic Franciszek Stankar the Younger (1562–​1621), son of the minister whose teachings started the Unitarian schism, was elected as his successor.53 Stankar worked zealously to enforce Reformed Church discipline, to unify the liturgy, and to rebuild the provincial schools, which thrived during this period. The Church was becoming solidly presbyterian in polity. In 1599, the Lesser Poland Church re-​organized itself into 7 districts with 126 congregations. Each district had a minister in charge, called the senior, and two or three lay seniors to help him. The final reorganization took place in 1620 and for the first time it took into account all the palatines where the Lesser Poland Church was present. The Lesser Poland Reformed Church was now divided into five districts: Cracow (called the “Chęciny” district), Sandomir, Lublin, Ruś (with Podole) and Bełz (with Wołyń and Kiev). All districts were expected to contribute to the upkeep of the province’s gymnasium in Bełżyce.54 51 52

Ibid., 22–​107. asr iii, 172, 190, 217 241; L. Szczucki, Franciszek Jezierski (zm.ok.1616/​1617), PSB, vol. 11 (1964/​1965), 200. 53 H. Gmiterek, Franciszek Stankar Młodszy (1562–​1621), PSB, vol. 42 (2003), 163–​164. 54 Tworek, “Z zagadnień organizacji,” 63–​ 75; idem, Działalność oświatowo-​kulturalna kalwinizmu małopolskiego (Lublin:  1970), 115–​310; A.  Wengersch (A. Węgierski), Libri Quattuor Slavoniae Reformatae, ed. J.  Tazbir (Varsoviae:  1973), 408–​450; W.  Kowalski,

Church Polity

37

Due to defections of magnate families to Catholicism, the Lesser Poland Reformed relied heavily on the Leszczyński family: Andrzej (1559–​1606), palatine of Brześć Kujawski55; his son Rafał ii (1579–​1636), palatine of Bełz56; and finally his son Andrzej (1606–​1651), palatine of Dorpat. With a well-​endowed church, a school, a printing press, and a theological library, their residence in Baranów Sandomierski became the seat of the Lesser Poland superintendents in 1629 and the Church’s informal capital.57 The Leszczyński family’s patronage was of great importance not just for political reasons: it proved to be a bridge between the Lesser Poland Reformed and the Greater Poland Czech Brethren. Andrzej Leszczyński moved to Baranów with his Brethren minister, Maciej Rybiński (1566–​1612).58 Leszczyński’s two sisters married into families in Lesser Poland and brought their own chaplains as well. This influx of Brethren ministers was not well-​received initially. The Lesser Poland Reformed resented the intrusion and demanded that Brethren ministers present themselves to local district seniors, who were to approve their call. Naturally, the Brethren objected and insisted that congregations with Brethren ministers were under their jurisdiction. In 1602, Feliks Słupecki, castellan of Lublin, wrote to his Reformed district and asked for permission to call a Brethren pastor. This was granted with an important caveat, “that [the minister] be sent not with ceremonies [Brethren liturgy] but for ceremonies, not with government [Brethren discipline] but to govern.”59 The conflict was resolved in 1615 when the Brethren agreed not to send ministers to Lesser Poland without the local senior asking for them first. Once a Brethren minister was sent, he was to participate in the local synods and conform to the local customs and liturgies.60 While the clergies’ movement was limited to one direction—​Brethren ministers working in Lesser Poland—​at the same time, the Leszczyński family sponsored university studies for Brethren ministers, who were all sent to Reformed universities such as Heidelberg, Altdorf, Strasbourg, and Basel. Thus, at the dawn of the seventeenth century, the number of Brethren clergy educated

55 56 57 58 59 60

“The Placement of Urbanised Scots in the Polish Crown during the sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in ed. A. Grosjean and S. Murdoch, Scottish Communities Abroad in the Early Modern Period (Leiden-​Boston:  2005), 53–​103; R.  Žirgulis, “The Scottish Community in Kedainai c. 1630–​c. 1730,” in: Grosjean and Murdoch, Scottish, 225–​247. W. Dworzaczek, Andrzej Leszczyński (ok.1559–​1606), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 101–​103. M. Sipayłło, Rafał Leszczyński (1579–​1636), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 135–​139. H. Kowalska, Andrzej Leszczyński (1606–​1651), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 103–​104. H. Gmiterek, Maciej Rybiński (1566–​1612), PSB, vol. 33 (1992), 338–​340. asr iii, 236; asr iv, 169. asr iii, 346–​347.

38 

Chapter 3

in Lutheran universities dwindled and the new generation came under the influence of Calvinism. In 1608, following Bishop Turnowski’s death, two new seniors were chosen for the Brethren, both of whom finished their theological education in Basel. The Brethren were moving towards Calvinism in theology and polity.61 The Brethren in Greater Poland were also undergoing profound changes while learning to live without magnate presence. When Andrzej Leszczyński moved south, the family’s Greater Poland estates went to his brother Wacław (d. 1628). However, he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1600. Leszno remained in the hands of Calvinist Andrzej, but for the next thirty years there were no Protestant Leszczyńskis living in the province. Thus, the Brethren were forced to involve the middle-​ranking nobles more in the affairs of the Church. In 1609, a new generation of ministers managed to summon lay people to their synod for the first time in decades. The lay and clerical synod delegates chose two clerical seniors and two konseniors and twelve lay seniors, making the Brethren church structure look slightly more presbyterian with four clerical and twelve laymen. Old habits die hard: after 1615, Brethren synods ceased for years and no new lay seniors were elected; by the 1620s, lay delegates stopped attending. Educated at Calvinist universities or not, as late as 1632, Brethren seniors still felt that the presence of lay delegates at synods was not necessary.62 Another sign that the Brethren were moving closer to the Reformed camp was their union with the Calvinists in Kujawy. By the early 1600s, the Calvinists there had shrunk from three districts to just six congregations with Daniel Mikołajewski (1560–​1633) as their superintendent.63 Closer contacts between these two Churches began in 1609 and the union was finalized in 1627 in Ostroróg. Mikołajewski was accepted as a third senior of the Brethren and ordained to the office.64 In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 1590s, the Reformed Church’s situation improved somewhat. In 1592, the Unitarian Jan Kiszka died and his estates went to Reformed relatives, who expelled Unitarian ministers and replaced them with Calvinists.65 In 1594, the Lithuanian Brethren revised the

61 62 63 64 65

J. Dworzaczkowa, “Bracia czescy-​kalwiniści-​ewangelicy reformowani:  problem terminologii,” Biblioteka 18 (2005): 147–​148. asr iv, 203–​208, 329–​331; W.  Dworzaczek, Wacław Leszczyński (ok.1576–​1628), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 147–​149. M. Sipayłło, Daniel Mikołajewski (1560–​1633), PSB, vol. 21 (1976), 154–​155. asr iv, 297, 310. H. Lulewicz, Krzysztof Radziwiłł zwany Piorunem (1547–​1603), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 264–​276.

Church Polity

39

1563 Nieśwież Catechism, another step on the path to Calvinist orthodoxy even if the word ‘Trinity’ was still not used.66 Also, the 1588 codification of Lithuanian law gave the Reformed congregations legal recognition, something the two Crown Churches never had. After the 1595 Toruń General Synod, the Lithuanians also restructured their Church: it was now divided into five districts, each with its own superintendent, and an annual synod that met in Vilnius.67 With a presbyterian polity, the post of the clerical president of the synod was abolished in 1618 and a new lay position emerged: that of “aktor zborowy,” whose job was to represent the Church in lawsuits in courts. The abolishing of a clerical president was symbolic: the Lithuanian Reformed Church was solidly presbyterian in its polity with strong lay control.68 The Radziwiłł family served as the ultimate arbiters:  in 1627, the church districts were re-​organized and aligned with Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł’s estate boundaries.69 In 1620, two different versions of the same catechism were prepared and, as a result, the synod decided that, “whichever of the two forms will be to his Grace Hetman’s liking, that one shall be sent to print.”70 He was their ultimate patron, defender, “First after the Lord God.”71 3.3

The 1634 Włodawa General Convocation and Its Aftermath

The impetus for Church unification came from a serious Bible shortage. As early as 1602, the Lesser Poland Calvinists suggested to the other Churches that they work on a new translation, as well as on a common liturgy. The Brethren expressed lukewarm interest and the idea was tabled “for a more opportune time.” The Lesser Poland Calvinists returned to it a decade later in 1613. Alluding to recent controversies between them, they called on the Brethren to ground their theology in Scripture and, therefore, to give up the tradition of using wafers for communion. Their approach was not the most tactful and the proposal went nowhere.72 The Lithuanian Church showed no interest either; indeed, in 66 Sławiński, Toruński, 138–​139. 67 Tworek, “Z zagadnień liczebności,” 207–​214. 68 AS 1915, 53; Gmiterek, Bracia czescy, 164; M.  Kosman, Protestanci i kontrreformacja. Z dziejów tolerancji w Rzeczpospolitej w XVI-​XVIII wieku (Wrocław-​ Warszawa-​ Kraków-​Gdańsk: 1978), 242. 69 U. Augustyniak, Dwór i klientela Krzysztofa Radziwiłła (1585–​1640). Mechanizmy patronatu (Warszawa: 2001), 46–​47, 200–​207. 70 AS 1915, 53. 71 AS 2020, 34. 72 asr iii, 347.

40 

Chapter 3

1620 it printed a new catechism with liturgy. But things changed in 1622. In that year, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł ordered the Lithuanian Church to “consult without delay with the Crown’s lords de uniformitate of all prayers.”73 His wishes were commands and, in 1626, the Lithuanians decided to send a delegation to talk with the two Churches in Poland. For political reasons, however, the synod never came to pass, and the idea was tabled yet again.74 King Zygmunt iii Waza’s death proved to be a mobilizing factor for all three Calvinist Churches. The pre-​election political activities of the Commonwealth’s Protestants brought their leaders together. The exchange of pulpits among the three Churches during the 1632 Sejms in Warsaw served to show on the one hand their doctrinal unity but, on the other, it exposed their existing liturgical and polity differences. If they were one political body that could vote and pray together, why did they not adopt the same liturgy and same church polity? The Greater Poland Brethren revived the idea in 1632. During their synod in Leszno, the Brethren held elections for the post of church senior and Tomasz Węgierski was chosen. At this time, he was the general superintendent of Lesser Poland’s Reformed Church. The Brethren asked the Lesser Poland Church to give him up, which led the Brethren to consider the unification of liturgies. They expressed the sentiment “that for the bigger advancement of God’s Glory there be conformitas in hymns, catechisms and in forms or agendas of church services,” and suggested that two ministers and one lay person be sent from each of the three Churches to work out a suitable agreement.75 The inclusion of a lay delegate was no doubt done under the advice of Węgierski, who knew that lay participation was a precondition to move the matter further in the other two Churches. It also shows the slow rise of lay power amongst the Brethren. On the other hand, the Brethren seniors insisted that their tradition of barring lay people from church governance be retained. Given the presbyterian polity of the other two Churches this caveat was not realistic, and had the delegates stuck to it, it could have jeopardized the talks entirely.76 The Lesser Poland Church conveniently ignored the request to give up their superintendent and focused instead on the idea of Church unification. Hoping to draw in the Lithuanian Reformed as well, it suggested that the three Churches send delegations in August 1633 to Orla, which was the property of Duke 73 74 75 76

AS 1915, 71. S. Tworek, “Starania o ujednolicenie obrządku kalwińskiego w Polsce w XVII wieku,” OiRwP 16 (1971): 117–​123. asr iv, 330–​331. app abc 1492.

Church Polity

41

Janusz ii Radziwiłł and under the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian Church. Thus, the Lithuanians were put on the spot and had to play host. The Lithuanians, hoping to sabotage the talks, told their delegation to agree to have one hymnal and liturgy, but to refuse any attempts to allow kneeling when receiving communion and to use hosts—​something they knew the Brethren would not relinquish.77 Despite such convoluted beginnings, the Orla Convocation was a success. Each of the three Churches gave up something and, in the end, those assembled agreed to print one Bible, one agenda, and one hymnal, which were to be presented to the three Churches for approval. Tomasz Węgierski did most of the work and consulted with two Lithuanian superintendents, which ensured that all three Churches participated and that all three would have a stake in the work’s success.78 During the 1634 Brethren synod in Ostroróg, the Orla agreements were approved with the seniors’ objections overridden by the more enthusiastic ministers and lay members.79 The Lesser Polish Reformed synod in Bełżyce was very pleased with the results, and suggested convening in September of 1634 in Włodawa. Their delegation was to have ten pastors (two from each district) and seven lay delegates. The Lithuanians also agreed to meet—​though with markedly less enthusiasm.80 Włodawa was chosen for the synod for a good reason: the city, though ecclesiastically part of the Lesser Poland Church, politically lay in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and thus was one of two congregations of the Lesser Poland Church to have legal standing. Furthermore, Czech immigrants populated the city, and its minister, Andrzej Węgierski, a younger brother of Tomasz, was of Brethren origins. Thus, Włodawa appeared to have already united all three provinces of the Commonwealth’s Reformed81 The Włodawa General Convocation was a unifying synod of Polish Calvinists, to a greater degree than the General Synods of Toruń in 1595 or Sandomir back in 1570. For the first time, the three Churches agreed to publish one hymnal for the three provinces and, more importantly, one agenda with a unified 77 78 79 80 81

AS 2011, 101–​102; Tworek, “Starania,” 117–​123. A more detailed assessment in Gmiterek, Bracia czescy, 130–​135. app abc 1493. AS 2011, 115–​116; Tworek, “Starania,” 123–​128. H. Gmiterek, “Włodawa w dziejach reformacji i kultury staropolskiej,” in ed. E. Olszewski, R.  Szczygieł, Dzieje Włodawy (Lublin–​Włodawa:  1991), 58–​65; W.  Urban, “Rola Braci Węgierskich w podtrzymywaniu protestantyzmu polskiego,” in ed. M. Surdacki, Religie, edukacja, kultura. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana profesorowi Stanisławowi Litakowi (Lublin: 2002), 47–​51.

42 

Chapter 3

liturgy (Chapter 4) But also, an effort was made to unify the three Churches’ structures. Despite a vigorous defense of their position that “political [lay people] not be involved in the government of the Church,” the Brethren gave in to a unified front from the Lithuanian and Lesser Poland Calvinists. Interestingly, their delegation in Włodawa consisted of ministers only, so they were the ones who conceded. From then on, in all three provinces lay seniors would be elected to govern the Church together with the clergy—​although as a concession to the Brethren, the methods of their election and installation were not specified. The Calvinists compromised with the Brethren by allowing for five levels of ministry (acolytes, deacons, ministers, konseniors, and seniors), but pushed through the Reformed theological point that these were levels of one and the same ministerial office. The Lithuanian Calvinists agreed to have a general superintendent for their province, but he was “not to rule or to make laws over others” (as in the Brethren polity) but to help govern the Churches. The ecclesiastical seniors were to be elected by the synods—​i.e., by both lay and ordained members—​in a manner that was tactfully left for each province to decide (public ballot in Lesser Poland and Lithuania, secret for the Brethren). Seniors were to be introduced into their offices and, thus, not ordained anew. This was a heavy dent in the episcopal polity of the Brethren. The Włodawa Convocation wisely left the details of the ceremony to each province: the Brethren continued the laying on of hands (even if this was now only an installation and not ordination), while the Lithuanians and Lesser Polish offered the new seniors and superintendents a hand of fellowship. Perhaps to avoid pushing the Brethren too far—​as well as to accommodate the Lithuanians—​the Convocation allowed for differences in receiving communion. Finally, each year the three superintendents were to meet and discuss common problems, alternating among Toruń (Brethren), Orla (Lithuania), and Włodawa (Lesser Poland).82 During their 1635 synod, the Lithuanian Church accepted Włodawa’s conclusions, despite not being completely satisfied with the liturgical changes it brought. A year later, it changed the name of its district superintendents to ‘seniors’ to align with the two Polish Churches, and elected Andrzej Dobrzański (d. 1640/​41) as its first general superintendent. His term of office was set for one year, with the possibility of re-​election. While following his death the office fell into abeyance, the Lithuanian structure did now resemble the Crown one. Just as in Lesser Poland, the superintendents and district seniors were usually re-​ elected for life, which made this new post very similar to the Brethren seniors, 82

app abc 1494.

Church Polity

43

who were elected for life. Furthermore, in accordance with the Włodawa agreements that stressed the importance of lay participation, its presbyterian model of government was further enhanced. A new corporate body, the Board of Curators (Rada Kuratorów), was formed with six seniors and six lay members. This new body was to have all the executive power between the synods, and was to be an executive of the Church.83 The Włodawa Convocation also profoundly changed the Brethren’s episcopal polity, pushing it in a more Reformed and presbyterian direction. These changes came just in time, as shortly after the synod was finished, Rafał ii Leszczyński, their main patron, died (1636). His son Bogusław Leszczyński (1614–​1659) inherited the estates in Greater Poland, but he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1642 and refused to pay for the pastors’ salaries in Leszno. While the church stayed open and Leszno remained the Brethren’s capital, they now had to rely on lesser nobility in their management of church affairs. Changes had already begun in preparation for the Włodawa Convocation. The Brethren’s synod in Ostroróg in April 1633 decided that each congregation was to elect two lay seniors to aid the minister “in a better government among the hearers” and for cases of church discipline.84 In 1637, the synod decided that each congregation could send two lay delegates to the Church synod, and from that point lay delegates started attending on a regular basis. The seniors resisted the change but the ministers and lay people responded that, “barring lords politicians [lay people] from synods and church matters is plus quam papisticum.”85 Electing lay seniors in congregations took a longer time:  in Ostroróg, the congregation was reluctant to call them in 1633 and 1634, but was pressured by the synod, and apparently did so by 1635. The reasons were practical rather than theological: the congregation was in turmoil, and the nobles were wary of accepting the responsibility, especially with the Catholics suing for the return of the town’s church. In Waszkowo, four elders were chosen from the plebeian members in 1635; in Parcice, four lay elders (all nobles) were confirmed during the congregation’s visitation in 1636. In Leszno, electing elders took a little longer, as the Brethren were hoping to bring the Lutherans into their fold and to share the elders for both congregations. After those talks failed, the Leszno congregation elected its own lay elders—​tellingly they were called “The Presbyterium.” When in 1646 the congregation in Orzeszkowo was established and

83 84 85

AS 2011, 147–​150; Petkunas, Holy, 63–​69. Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8, fol. 14, 16–​17. Ibid., fol. 107–​108.

44 

Chapter 3

a new church building consecrated, those gathered chose two lay seniors for the congregation.86 At the central level, the Brethren’s episcopal polity was beginning to change as well. In 1640, it was decided that there would be four general “seniors politici” for the Church: two for the Poznań district and two for the Kalisz district. These seniors began attending the synods on a regular basis from 1654. The synods continued to be a predominantly ecclesiastical affair, but joint sessions of the lay and ecclesiastical seniors were established. There was some pushback from the clergy: in 1647, the synod in Leszno decided that lay seniors would not be ordained and ordered the congregations “to give this matter a rest, and not to bring it up again.”87 It also ruled that only ministers could take part in the election of clerical seniors during the synods, which was a creative interpretation of the Włodawa agreements. The Presbyterian tilt of Włodawa began to affect even the office of the ecclesiastical seniors. After the death of Jan Rybiński in 1638, his colleague Marcin Orminius continued as the sole senior of the Brethren until his death in 1643. This did not sit well with either the clergy or the laity, and in 1644, after a lengthy discussion, it was decided that henceforth there would always be two ecclesiastical seniors, a practice which was maintained until the nineteenth century. It is worth pointing out that this happened when Jan Bythner (1602–1675), originally from Lesser Poland, was elected the Brethren’s senior in 1644. No doubt his Reformed background made him push harder for this change.88 The Church that was least affected in terms of structural change by the Włodawa Convocation was the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland. The lay element there had always been very strong. Though the superintendent Tomasz Węgierski was loved and respected by the faithful, he was unable to tip the balance towards larger clerical participation. In 1651, disaster struck: Andrzej Leszczyński died, leaving his only son Samuel (1636–​1676) in the care of his now Roman Catholic uncle, Bogusław Leszczyński. The latter was no 86

87 88

Ibid., fol. 14, 17, 88; app abc 1596, 2444 fol. 2:  We have records of the Leszno Presbyterium meetings from 1665 onwards. app abc 2290; J. Bielecka, “Bracia czescy w Lesznie. Organizacja i działalność (1550–​1817),” Rocznik Leszczyński 2 (1978): 153–​173; P.  M. Dziembowski, “Z dziejów kościoła ewangelicko-​reformowanego w Orzeszkowie,” Gens (2007/​2008): 110. Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8, fol. 127. At the same time his older brother Marcin Bythner was a senior of one of the districts of the Lithuanian Reformed Church:  M. Pawelec, Bartłomiej Bythner starszy (ok.1559–​ 1629), (Warszawa:  2008), 92–​93; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 120; A. Starke, Jan Bythner (1602–​1675), PSB, vol. 3 (1937), 182–​183.

Church Polity

45

fanatic—​after all, he shielded the Brethren in Leszno—​but he placed his nephew with the Jesuits, where the young man promptly converted to Catholicism. Samuel Leszczyński then gave the Reformed church in Baranów Sandomierski to the Roman Catholics, and closed the school and printing press. The result: the Lesser Poland Reformed Church lost its capital. Tomasz Węgierski was sent packing, and he died heartbroken in 1653. Nobles continued to dominate the Lesser Poland Church until the end of its existence in 1849.89 The 1634 Włodawa General Convocation marked the end of polity formation of the Commonwealth’s Reformed Churches, a process that had taken almost a century. During the first phase, all three Churches were trying to establish themselves, and the Unitarian schism, affecting the Lesser Poland and the Lithuanian Churches, was disruptive. The Sandomir Consensus did little to solve the polity questions and problems of the three Reformed Churches. Theologically, it was simply a commitment of the four Churches (Lesser Poland Reformed, the Brethren, the Lutherans, and the Lithuanian Reformed) to remain Trinitarian Protestants. Questions of liturgy and polity were left for later. Even the detailed theology was left to the Confession of Sandomir to which only the Brethren and the Reformed would subscribe. The Brethren spent the next twenty-​five years in futile efforts to keep the Lutherans in alignment while the Reformed purged themselves of any vestiges of Unitarianism. When after 1595 it became clear that the Lutherans were not interested in church unity with the Reformed, the Sandomir Consensus was abandoned as any sort of ecumenical rallying point and the Confession began to be treated as a Reformed theological document. But the situation in the Commonwealth demanded more:  if the three Churches were not Unitarian or Lutheran, what were they? And if they were Reformed, just how Reformed were they? The Calvinists and the Brethren had to decide whether to unite or to remain separate. Although the elder generation of Brethren pastors preferred the latter option, a series of practical, political, and theological circumstances drew the two Churches closer. The process took time, but culminated in the Włodawa General Convocation in 1634. The Brethren ultimately allowed some lay control of the Church, while retaining seniors (bishops). The new polity placed them in a presbytery with lay elders. The other Churches agreed to add or retain such seniors without giving them too much power, again placing them as bishops within a presbytery. The polity 89 W. Dworzaczek, Bogusław Leszczyński (ok.1612–​ 1659), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 110; W.  Majewski, Samuel Leszczyński (1637–​1676), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 143–​144; K.  Bem, “Protestant Solidarity in the Eighteenth Century: Relief Efforts of the Walloons for the Polish Reformed Churches,” Church History 73 (2004): 90–​113.

46 

Chapter 3

and liturgical changes made in Włodawa shaped the three Calvinist Churches for centuries. Thus, in terms of church polity, the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation was to the Polish Reformed what Dort and Westminster were to the Dutch and English Calvinists: a rallying point and a theological, liturgical, and polity watershed. Ironically, they achieved it long after the heyday of their political power. Not even the political calamities after 1648 would cause any of them to revert to their previous practices.

­c hapter 4

The Liturgy As with their polities, the three Reformed Churches in the Commonwealth were slow to unify their liturgies. Initially, the two Reformed Churches in Lesser Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania accepted Jan Łaski’s Forma ac Ratio. Regarded as the abiding liturgical form for churches in Poland and Lithuania, it continued to spread even during the years of the Unitarian controversy. It was never successful in eliminating other rites, though, and was itself probably heavily adjusted for local need and custom. After 1595, Krzysztof Kraiński’s ‘Order of Service’ (Porządek Nabożeństwa), revised in 1602 and 1614, began to supplant Łaski’s liturgy in Lesser Poland and was successful in unifying that province’s liturgical practices. It created, however, a third liturgical pattern different from the Brethren liturgy used in Greater Poland and Łaski’s liturgy, retained in Lithuania. It was only the Włodawa General Convocation and the publication of the Great Gdańsk Agenda of 1637 that unified the liturgies of the Reformed in the Commonwealth of Both Nations.1 4.1

The Early Years: 1550–​1595

Tradition places the first public celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the Reformed fashion in Pińczów on November 25, 1550.2 Earlier that month, Mikołaj Oleśnicki, the town’s owner, had installed Jakub Sylvius as the town’s pastor; expelled the Pauline friars and Catholic priests; and allegedly purged the town’s church of images and altars.3 In November, Oleśnicki convened the first national synod, which was attended by a handful of Protestant nobles and their clergy, as well as onlookers and sympathizers. Under the leadership of the savvy and learned Francesco Stancaro, they adopted the 1543 Cologne Confession of Faith. Secemin’s minister celebrated the Lord’s Supper publicly in the Reformed fashion for the first time in Poland at this first national synod in November 1550. 1 This Chapter is a revised and expanded version of K. Bem, ““From many different sources”: The Formation of the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed Liturgy” in ed. T. Berger, Liturgy in Migration. From the Upper Room to Cyberspace (Pueblo Liturgical Press: 2012), 101–​130. 2 asr i, 2. 3 Pielas, Oleśniccy, 151–​156.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_005

48 

Chapter 4

The first synod’s records are laconic about the details, saying only in Latin: “The true Lord’s Supper was celebrated for the first time by Jacob Sylvius, at the time pastor of the Pińczów church.”4 Given that Stancaro was present, we can assume that he was instrumental not only in presenting the Confession but also in suggesting a liturgy. Later sources attest that Lesser Poland’s Calvinists were adamant that the Lord’s Supper should only be celebrated in churches purged of any Catholic worship items—​but we cannot say anything with certainty. In fact, we cannot be even certain that it was celebrated in Polish and not Latin. We should also bear in mind that some of the nobles present had been fostering a Lutheran-​inspired reform on their estates, a legacy of their studies in Wittenberg, Leipzig, or Königsberg. Stancaro at the time was also sympathetic to Lutheranism. Whatever liturgy was used, it was probably not purely Reformed.5 To complicate matters, the Roman Catholic polemicist Orzechowski (clearly confusing the events of late 1550 and the summer of 1551) claims that Stancaro “began to establish the error of Zwingli […] According to these precepts he ordered that images be removed from the church, an outlandish Lord’s Supper be instituted in the place of the usual one.” Orzechowski insists that this was not done due to fear of the king and that “for the present it was thought best to institute the Lord’s Supper, but this should be only done privately in the castle, not publicly in the church […] In accordance with this view they permitted Stancaro to decide the manner of the new Supper and to teach the use of it.”6 Orzechowski was probably correct in saying that a “foreign” liturgy was used, but he was wrong when he identified it as Zwingli’s. Given Stancaro’s theological views in the early 1550s, we can assume that some variant of Hermann von Wied’s Consultation was employed. This would explain the use of the word “outlandish” (peregrinam). Stancaro may have been responsible for translating the Consultation into Polish and making it available to fellow ministers. There is no evidence for the claim the Reformed were using Zwingli’s liturgy at this time or at any other point. Orzechowski probably ascribed later theological convictions to the early stages of the Reformation.7

4 5

asr i, 2. Stanisław Lasocki (d. 1563) studied in Leipzig and Wittenberg, Stanisław Szafraniec (1530–​ 1598) was brought up and studied in Königsberg, and Krzystof Pilecki was accused of forcing Catholic clergy in his town of Łańcut to celebrate “Lutheran” ceremonies—​Petkunas, Holy, 63–​69. 6 Lubieniecki, History, 105. 7 The word could suggest a version of the Basel liturgy, which Stancaro would have known from his 1540 stay in the city. However, given his preference for the 1543 Cologne Confession

The Liturgy

49

Any development of this new church was thwarted in February of 1551, when Oleśnicki, under the king’s pressure, allowed the monks to return to their monastery, reinstate Catholic mass in the town’s church and convent, and returned the confiscated paraments.8 The Protestant ministers dispersed to Prussia (Stancaro), Silesia, (Sylvius) and Lithuania (Zacjusz). Only Marcin Krowicki stayed in Pińczów, preaching in the castle chapel. When Oleśnicki once again ejected the monks and Catholic clergy in the summer of 1551 (this time permanently), Krowicki moved his services into the main church. However, because of the fear of persecution by the bishop of Cracow, he too, was forced to flee to Wittenberg in 1553.9 For the next few years, the Reformation in Lesser Poland became a highly decentralized movement with a de facto congregational polity. This did little for unified liturgical practice. In fact, the years 1551–​1554 saw a growing radicalization on the part of both nobility and reform-​minded clergy. In the meantime, Stancaro worked on his liturgy and had it published in 1552 in Frankfurt (Oder) as Canones Reformationis Ecclesiam Polonicarum. This work was translated, expanded, and published in Polish in 1553 as Porządek naprawienia w kościelech naszych. It was more of a directory than a set liturgy, with visible traces of Catholic ritual. Given that it was published in a Lutheran town, this is hardly surprising.10 By the time the next Reformed synod met in November 1554 in Słomniki, Stancaro’s work seemed too conservative for many nobles. It was also criticized for intemperate language that some thought might alienate the king. The nobleman Stadnicki suggested that it be burnt, which is what happened. Nevertheless, the Reformed movement in Lesser Poland was in desperate need of uniformity of faith and worship, so those gathered, while rejecting Stancaro’s Confession, accepted his liturgy. This acceptance was probably understood to be for a limited time, as the same synod also resolved to begin talks with the Czech Brethren about a possible Church union. It is doubtful if Stancaro’s Porządek was ever implemented in the Lesser Polish Reformed Church to any wider extent; just one copy of it survives to this day.11

and the strong Lutheran sympathies of both the nobles and Stancaro, this does not seem probable. 8 Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 405–​406; The requirement of Oleśnicki to return the church’s furnishings suggests that they were not so much destroyed, as removed from the church. 9 H. Barycz, Marcin Krowicki, PSB, vol. 15, (1970), 350–​353. 10 Petkunas, Holy, 66–​68; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 413, 450–​456. 11 asr i, 2–​3; J. Maciuszko, “Poglądy religijne Mikołaja Reja,” in ed. W. Kowalski, Mikołaj Rej z Nagłowic. W pięćsetną rocznicę urodzin (Kielce: 2005), 287–​308.

50 

Chapter 4

The talks with the Czech Brethren in Greater Poland proceeded swiftly. The Brethren were first approached in March of 1555 in Krzęcice. They were glad to hear the zeal of the Polish Protestants for unity, but cautioned to proceed slowly. The Lesser Poland Reformed—​nobles and clergy alike—​rejected this guidance and, in April 1555, came to Koźminek, a town with a Brethren school and church. Here, they forced themselves into an ecclesiastical and liturgical union with the Brethren, despite the latter’s clear misgivings. When it came to liturgical questions, the Lesser Poles were remarkably candid, if also cavalier. They “desired” to adopt the Brethren customs, but since there were not enough copies for them to take home and study, they suggested taking a closer look later. The Poles added a caveat: “And if these books are according to God’s Word truly and rightly written, we will receive them gladly, and what we might not like about them, we will tell you so.”12 Naturally, the Brethren were not impressed and insisted that a theological union must entail a liturgical one as well. They acknowledged that this might take a while, and the Lesser Poland’s Reformed agreed to work on implementing the Brethren liturgies: “That ceremonies in their churches and congregations in all matters as are used in the Brethren, are slowly to be led in. And for that we have agreed to give them oversight, so that they might in all these be strengthened and all with all their congregations with us unite. They also agreed to that in all their counsels and needs to seek and use Br. Jerzy Izrael and our elders. And to confirm that they went with us to the eating of the Lord’s Supper.”13 During the Lesser Poland synod of Secemin in January 1556, the Koźminek Union was to be implemented by the Lesser Poland Reformed. The synod did accept the Brethren liturgy and ordered ministers to follow it, but the same synod also began to look west to Melanchthon, Calvin, and Jan Łaski for theological guidance. This was a clear indication that not all the Lesser Polish Reformed were in agreement with the Union. The Lesser Polish independent leanings were reinforced when those assembled kept Feliks Cruciger as their superintendent for a term of one year—​both the position and its term limit totally unknown in Brethren Church polity.14 Regarding liturgical matters, no mention is made of the distribution of copies of the Brethren liturgy, which they were in theory implementing.15

12 asr i, 28. 13 Ibid., 41. 14 asr i, 51–​52. 15 Ibid., 46–​52.

The Liturgy

51

At the next Lesser Poland Reformed synod, which was held in Pińczów in May 1556, Brethren delegates and the supporters of the Koźminek Union faced clear opposition. Clergy—​notably Sylvius and Lismanin—​disliked both the rites and the theology. Sylvius described the liturgy bluntly as “way too long, and not uplifting.”16 With some astonishment, the Brethren realized that the Lesser Polish Reformed were “between Calvinists and Zwinglians” in their understanding of the Lord’s Supper.17 Objections were made not just to the understanding of the Lord’s Supper, clerical celibacy, and the requirement that Brethren clergy work manually, but also to the public form of exercising church discipline (Chapter 5). The synod ended in a stalemate. On the one hand, the Koźminek Union was officially reaffirmed, and the Brethren were asked to instruct the Lesser Poland’s clergy. At the same time, those assembled wrote to Calvin and Łaski, inviting them to come to Poland and to reform the Polish Church. The bitter Brethren delegates remarked sarcastically “Calvin is for them as God, and whatever he says, all is accepted by them as true with no opposition or looking back.”18 The November-​December 1556 visit of Brethren ministers Izrael and Ryba to Superintendent Feliks Cruciger offers a fascinating glimpse into an early Lesser Polish Reformed parish in search of forms, discipline, and liturgies for the new religious situation. The town of Secemin was the property of Stanisław Szafraniec (c. 1530–​1598), who in 1553 turned over its three churches for Protestant worship and installed Cruciger as pastor, hoping to convert its population. Cruciger had also been a supporter of the Koźminek Union.19 The Brethren visitors arrived on a Sunday in Advent and that same day took part in the evening service led by Cruciger. From the beginning, they found much to critique: the hymns were not taken from the Brethren hymnal; the minister exhorted the faithful not from the pulpit “but standing in front of the people on the ground, and he exhorts them in his own custom; the prayers of intercession were not said in silence, rather, the minister said them out loud, and the congregation repeated them after him; the prayers of thanksgiving after the sermon followed the same pattern.”20 After the service, the minister baptized a Catholic couple’s child which the Brethren thought was inappropriate and mentioned, that “they [the Reformed in Lesser Poland] keep other 16 Ibid., 70. 17 Ibid., 73. 18 Ibid., 74. 19 Kaniewska, Stanisław Szafraniec, PSB, 471–​479. 20 asr i, 84–​85.

52 

Chapter 4

ceremonies than ours during Christening, of which we would have to write for too long here.”21 Unluckily for us, the Brethren did not elaborate on those differences. Naturally, all of this very much displeased Jerzy Izrael, so in the evening he “admonished his host.” The next day, Cruciger led morning worship in his fashion—​which further displeased the Brethren and led to another round of admonishments. It is interesting to note, that “the sermon was according to their thought … half of the words in Polish, half in Latin were said.”22 It is tempting to assume based on that observation that the same pattern was followed in the liturgy. This could also imply the use of Stancaro’s liturgy but that is only a possibility. No more details are given about the liturgy, as the report moves to discussion of church discipline and understanding of the Lord’s Supper. The next week brought a series of increasingly obnoxious admonitions by Izrael to his Lesser Polish hosts, the highlight of which was his efforts to encourage them to perform manual labor, as was the custom of the Brethren clergy. The Lesser Polish Reformed clergy were shocked and one simply fled to the castle, leaving the superintendent Cruciger to make excuses to his intense guests.23 The differences between the Lesser Poland’s Reformed and the Brethren became even clearer during a meeting of the clergy from both sides in Krzęcice the following week.24 Many issues were discussed, including the question of whether the Lord’s Supper could be celebrated before the removal of the Roman Catholic altars and images from the churches. Marcin Krowicki stated, “When I was sent to Wodzisław by my elders, seeing that there were none from amongst the plebs who knew God’s Truth, I indulged them as little children, and with the consent of my brothers, I preached in a surplice, and bore the paintings for more than half a year. Only when they began to accept God’s Truth did I abandon the surplice and the paintings throw away without unnecessary scandal.”25 This common-​sense attitude met with approval from the Brethren, who remarked that in their churches “in Ostroróg and Koźminek images stayed for a long while, until the folk learned God’s Truth. Then we covered them with sheets, and when the folks cared less for them, we took them down from the altars and railings, and hid them in secret places, so they would not impede those more foggy in their faith.”26 Jakub Sylvius, who had 21 Ibid., 84. 22 Ibid., 85. 23 Ibid., 87, 91, 94. 24 Ibid., 114–​171. 25 Ibid., 111. This indicates that Reform-​minded ministers wanted to abandon the surplice. 26 Ibid., 113.

The Liturgy

53

little sympathy for the Brethren, insisted that images be removed first. His opinion—​that the Lord’s Supper could only be celebrated once the buildings were purged—​carried the day. In the following days, the Brethren faced opposition to the Koźminek Union from certain Polish ministers, headed by Sarnicki. The Lesser Polish ministers acknowledged “we do not keep all ceremonies … which you have, like the shaking of the hand with each other by Baptism and then with the minister. Also with the Lord’s Supper, some things are omitted, and some are kept, because some of us did not have your agendas, so that from beginning we could use them and be governed by them. And thus, the folk—​and the ministers too—​ are used to some ceremonies which we shall keep.”27 Wisely, the Brethren were more accommodating this time. They remarked that uniformity was a process and offered to send a Brethren minister to Lesser Poland to teach the liturgy. However, with Łaski on his way to Poland, their influence was waning fast. The lack of an official translation of the Brethren liturgy into Polish was another complication—​the Polish nobles saw little advantage in Latin being superseded by Czech.28 Jan Łaski arrived in Lesser Poland in December 1556. Despite having repeatedly confirmed the Koźminek Union, the Lesser Poland Reformed asked him to evaluate it and provide amendments as he thought necessary; he indeed thought there were a few.29 Not surprisingly, the June 15–​18 synod of Wodzisław of 1557 was not without conflicts.30 When the Brethren arrived in Wodzisław they remarked that “we saw the fashion of their service, simply different from ours in ceremonies, singing, exhortation, praying, and in preaching”31—​the Lesser Poland’s Calvinists had already began to use Łaski’s Forma ac Ratio. This did little to placate the Brethren, already annoyed with the duplicity of the Lesser Polish Reformed. Calling the Reformed “rascals,” the Brethren accused them of reneging on the Koźminek Union: did the Lesser Poles not promise to conform to the liturgies and the teachings of the Brethren? Had the Brethren not sent agendas and hymnbooks? And had the ministers Izrael and Czerwonka not come to Lesser Poland to instruct them? If that was the case, why was the Koźminek Union falling apart? The Brethren did raise some valid points. While Lesser Poles had found it impossible to learn the Brethren’s liturgy in 27 Ibid., 153. 28 H. Gmiterek, “Problemy unifikacji liturgii braci czeskich i kalwinów w Rzeczpospolitej XVI-​XVII w.,” Annales universitatis Mariae Curie-​Skłodowska 40 sectio F (1985): 98–​99. 29 asr i, 173. 30 Ibid., 179–​207. 31 Ibid., 195.

54 

Chapter 4

the two years since signing the Koźminek Union, they had no problems in immediately adopting Łaski’s liturgies. Where there was a will, there was obviously a way. Although Łaski did convince the Brethren of his own good will, the Lesser Poland’s Calvinists now had no reason to adopt the Brethren’s liturgy. Łaski’s Forma ac Ratio was the standard and its use began to spread in Lesser Poland and, following his 1557 visit to Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well. The Lesser Polish admitted frankly a few years later to the Brethren, “When we learned of Stancaro’s ‘Reformatio,’ we took it to be gold. Then your Brethren [liturgy] was far better to our liking. But the Reverend Łaski even more. And so, may you Brethren not hold it against us that when we see something better thanks to the Grace of God, that we accept it, and you too Brethren should do so with us.”32 The next year’s liturgical questions receded into the background: Łaski attempted to forge theological unity among the Brethren, the Calvinists, and the Lutherans and liturgical differences held secondary importance to this monumental task. During those talks, the Brethren showed they did not hold a grudge and were amenable to compromise. They admitted, for example, that their custom of receiving the Lord’s Supper while kneeling had little to do with adoring the elements themselves and more with the dynamics of serving communion. They hinted that they would be inclined to allow receiving the sacrament while seated, as had become the custom in Lesser Poland.33 Due to his influence, the use of Łaski’s liturgy quickly spread in the Lesser Poland Church. This does not mean that it was always well received: The September synod of 1558 in Wodzisław admitted that ministers and faithful alike were resisting some of its provisions. Those gathered admonished the reluctant ministers and ordered them to conform and unify their congregations’ worship based on Łaski’s Forma.34 This was particularly important because this synod included the delegates of the Podlasie district of the Lithuanian Reformed Church (with its superintendent Zacjusz), as well as delegates from the Chełm region in the east of Poland. Thus, copies of Łaski’s Forma could have been sent with those delegates back home for dissemination and implementation and it soon became the liturgical norm in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Darius Petkunas has argued that the synod “was not empowered to legislate on behalf of the Lithuanian congregations” as “Poland and Lithuania 32 33 34

asr ii, 103; Petkunas, Holy, 156; Michael S.  Springer, Restoring Christ’s Church. John a Lasco and the Forma ac ratio (Ashgate: 2007), 135–​141. asr i, 289. Ibid., 271, 279.

The Liturgy

55

were separate countries”35 and that there is no mention of such action in the minutes. That, however, is a problematic interpretation. To begin, the Latin minutes are very succinct—​more was said than the minutes preserve. The Grand Duchy is mentioned when all present adopted together a common confession—​it would be very odd that those gathered would suddenly decide not to make decisions regarding the liturgy in deference to Lithuania’s sovereignty. Lesser Poland was the center of the Reformed movement in both of the realms of Zygmunt ii August. The superintendent of the Lithuanian Reformed, Szymon Zacjusz, came from Lesser Poland, was Polish himself, and Polish was the liturgical language of the Reformed Church in Lithuania. Finally, Jan Łaski was living and working in Lesser Poland. It is therefore reasonable to expect that decisions about the liturgy, doctrine, and polity of the Churches he was trying to unite theologically were made in Lesser Poland in the presence of and with the consent of (and not for!) the Lithuanian Reformed. The presence of Zacjusz, who represented the Church in Lithuania, ensured that the Lithuanian churches would implement any decisions made. Petkunas is right when he says that the acceptance of Łaski’s Forma was a gradual process, “the result of the continuing close contacts between the Lithuanians and the Poles.”36 The issue of liturgical practice resurfaced briefly during the June 1559 synod in Pińczów. The Lesser Polish Calvinists met with a delegate from the Calvinist churches in Kujawy and agreed that the Lord’s Supper “should be simple and humbly celebrated in the example of Christ, not pompous, like the popish with their masses with their superstitions, also not too complex, but [rather] adorned with the truth of God’s word.”37 This is very interesting, since we know from later sources that the Reformed churches in Kujawy did not adopt Łaski’s liturgy. Communion in the Kujawy churches was, from the beginning, received while standing, as opposed to the Lutherans and the Brethren, who knelt, and the Lesser Polish Reformed, who were seated.38 No details were spelled out, and the Kujawy Calvinists kept their own liturgy. Even after Łaski’s death, his liturgy was the new Church’s official form. When some ministers raised objections to it, those assembled resolved that “until such a time when by the Grace of God all the churches in Poland are properly reformed,” it was to be the liturgy to be used and followed.39 It was probably the Forma ac Ratio that was sent to the churches in Podole 35 Petkunas, Holy, 156. 36 Ibid., 157. 37 asr i, 302. 38 asr ii, 195–​196. 39 Ibid., 4.

56 

Chapter 4

(in southern Crown, near the Moldavian and Turkish borders), as well as to the heavily Reformed regions of Oświęcim, by the October 1560 synod of Książ.40 Łaski’s liturgy for the installation of elders was explicitly re-​ affirmed during the January 1561 synod in Pińczów, when his son-​in-​law Stanisław Lutomirski (c. 1520–​1575) was elected the new superintendent of Lesser Poland’s Reformed Church—​something that undoubtedly further promoted the liturgy.41 The next decade saw the entire Polish Protestant movement, particularly the Lesser Poland’s Reformed and the Lithuanian Churches, engulfed in the Unitarian controversy. In December 1561, Sylvius handed over the records to the Unitarian-​inclined Lutomirski and the taking of minutes ceased altogether. Thus, we have little material with which to trace the development of liturgical practice in Lesser Poland’s congregations.42 From 1561 to 1595, we find very few mentions of any liturgical matters in the Reformed. We do know that Łaski’s liturgy continued to spread, probably by each minister making individual copies for their congregation’s use. The practice of taking the Lord’s Supper while seated took root.43 With the theological differences apparently too subtle for most to detect, the Reformed in Lesser Poland and Lithuania needed a more salient way to differentiate themselves from the Unitarian Polish Brethren. By the 1570s, perhaps under the influence of the Kujawy Calvinists, the Reformed in Lesser Poland began to receive communion while standing, while the Polish Brethren continued the tradition partaking while seated. The Cracow Synod of 1573, where tellingly the Kujawy Calvinist delegates were present, made it mandatory for the people to receive communion while standing and forbade to take it while seated.44 This was reiterated in 1583.45 In 1566, the Lesser Poland’s ministers, under Swiss influence, agreed to administer the Lord’s Supper at least quarterly. Apart from the frequency and the proper posture of faithful, little else was agreed upon in those years. Both the Sandomir Consensus and the Sandomir Confession of 1570 are silent regarding ceremonies and liturgical matters. Given that they both tried to reconcile three 40 41 42 43 44 45

Ibid., 38–​39. The Latin minutes are very laconic. The Polish version written down by the Brethren concentrates on the question of church discipline (or lack of it) in the Lesser Polish Church and the heavy hand of the nobles in running it. Ibid., 77, 91; Kowalska, Stanisław Lutomirski, PSB, 144–​146. The records of the Lithuanian Church were burnt during in 1611. The Unitarians accepted also other parts of his liturgy, as Moskorzowski’s 1646 Unitarian agenda testifies See Petkunas, Holy, 157. asr iii, 12–​13. Ibid., 79, 82.

The Liturgy

57

different theologies of the Lord’s Supper, this evasion is not surprising. In the chaotic and highly decentralized atmosphere of the Polish Reformed Church, there were variants in local church practice from the standard Łaski’s liturgy.46 4.2

Kraiński’s Forma of 1599 and the 1601 Agenda in Lesser Poland

It has been argued that the discussion regarding a unification of liturgies began during the July 1594 Lublin district synod when those assembled expressed the desire for uniformity in worship. The argument continues that this request was accepted in 1595, endorsed by the Church of the whole province in 1599, and finally edited in a new form in 1601. The resulting 1601 Agenda was the product of Krzysztof Kraiński, was first accepted as the basis for liturgies in the Lublin and Bełz districts, and was then accepted in the greater Lesser Polish Reformed Church, thanks to his erudition and influence.47 This is a problematic interpretation. The passage from the 1594 synod does not necessarily mean that there was diverse practice in the Lublin district. In fact, the text could be interpreted in the opposite way. It reads: “The form of serving the sacraments is to be agreed upon during the next synod, and there, if anything should require corrections, we will agree on it.”48 Notice the “if”—​if any corrections shall be needed, then they will happen. In order to have corrections, there must be something to correct. The future synod mentioned was the Toruń General Synod of 1595, where the Reformed, Lutherans, and Czech Brethren were in attendance.49 Kraiński and the district senior Franciszek Jezierski (d. 1616/​1617) headed the district’s delegation to the General Synod. It is hard to imagine that they would not bring an agreed-​upon liturgy rather than a plethora of regional rites. Additionally, we know of only one liturgical variant in the Lublin district before 1594 and it centered on the issue of how the Lord’s Supper was to be received. That same 1594 district synod allowed that “weak ones” receive it kneeling, with the general rule to receive it standing.50 It is more likely that by the 1594 district synod the Lublin Reformed had already achieved some measure of liturgical unity. This claim is reinforced by the fact that none of the Lublin district’s existing minutes or church visitation 46 asr ii, 203, 251–​304, 320. 47 Petkunas, Holy, 115–​ 125; J.  Tazbir, Krzysztof Kraiński (1556–​ 1618), PSB, vol. 15 (1970), 92–​93. 48 asr iii, 105. 49 Sławiński, Toruński, 147–​156. 50 asr iii, 105.

58 

Chapter 4

records from 1581 on mention anything regarding divergent liturgical practice.51 The district senior Jezierski, who later was very zealous in enforcing liturgical uniformity throughout Lesser Poland, conducted those visitations. There is little reason to believe that before 1601 he was oblivious or indifferent to questions of liturgical uniformity. If there had been a wide range of liturgical practices in the Lublin district before 1594, the absence of any complaints about this would be strange. Also, when in 1598 Lesser Poland’s provincial synod recommended Kraiński’s Forma to the other districts, it was the first time that liturgical abuses were named: “crucifixes and exorcisms we condemn”—​ admonitions we never hear of in the Lublin district.52 All of this taken together suggests that local liturgical uniformity had been achieved in the Lublin district before 1581, which is the date from which we have records. A peculiar note from a 1566 gathering of the seniors of the Lesser Poland and Lithuanian Reformed in Wodzisław reads: Concerning rites of the administrating of the sacraments. Moreover, as frequent alterations of the conformity of the sacred ceremonies are a stumbling block for simpletons, for that reason the concealment of all of them is to be uniformly preserved by all of those in the sacred ministry. Verily, the rites are to be emplaced by the seniors in the mode of the utmost modesty, whose edification let it serve, on account of which reverence let be carried over to the administration of the mysteries of God, they have ordained as needing to be fashioned [as] in the wine press. Moreover, for however long the private sheets of paper of the ceremony are written, for such a length of time the major changes will provide that which moreover will glorify itself, not likewise the contrary. But consequently there will be a future synod, which is assigned after the festival days of the Birth of the Lord, the extended volume of the Ecclesial ordinal the senior brothers will [be] carried out.53 Despite its clumsy Latin (which I tried to show in the translation), this is an interesting and often overlooked passage. It suggests that despite promulgating Łaski’s liturgy, some ministers continued to modify it—​adding or subtracting as they saw fit—​while others probably continued on with what they had done before, each having his own “sheet” or liturgy. The ministers were now ordered

51 52 53

Ibid., 44–​74, 85–​95, 103–​105. Ibid., 197–​198. asr ii, 202–​203.

The Liturgy

59

to hand these “sheets” over to the seniors, who were placed in charge of unifying the liturgies, at least in their respective districts, in anticipation of a provincial synod which was to deal with this matter, and which never took place. We know that this district unification did not happen everywhere, but it appears to have happened in the Lublin district before 1581. Perhaps such an endeavor would have been entrusted to Krzysztof Kraiński (1556–​1618). We know little of Kraiński’s early life, but by 1594, when he was appointed as minister of the prestigious Lublin congregation, we do know he held considerable influence. It probably came from his contribution to the successful unification of the Lublin Reformed liturgies. We do not know how long this project took, but it involved serious inquiries into the liturgical fashions of the churches in Lublin, Bełz, and Chełm palatines, as well as the foreign liturgies.54 The Lublin palatine boasted Dutch-​and Swiss-​educated Reformed nobles with extensive libraries rich with theological books from the West, all likely available for his work.55 We know that the Heidelberg Catechism began to exert strong influence on Polish Reformed catechisms and it would be odd if the Palatinate liturgy did not as well.56 In fact, when Kraiński’s liturgy was revised in 1601, its multiple sources were explicitly acknowledged by the revision committee: “Having looked zealously into the Forma published in 1599 by our beloved brother Reverend Krzysztof Kraiński, which he has gathered from many different forms but agreeing in form and matter to God’s Word.”57 In the introduction to his liturgy, Kraiński himself mentions that these new forms are in agreement with French, English, Scottish, Hungarian, Swiss, and Dutch forms—​a claim he would not have made if he had not known and studied them. This claim, additionally, gave Kraiński’s work a prima-​facie veneer of Reformed orthodoxy: if anyone wanted to dispute it, he would have to prove him wrong.58

54

Ibid., 205. The Bełz district was formed from the Lublin district in 1599, and grouped the churches in the palatines of Bełz and Wołyń. The churches in the Chełm area stayed within the Lublin district, which meant that all these areas were using the same liturgy. 55 Kraiński befriended the Słupecki family, educated in Basel, Heidelberg, and Leiden. When Feliks Słupecki established a Reformed school in his town of Opole Lubelskie in 1598, he named Kraiński as its headmaster. Those contacts must have dated to years before that, and Kraiński presumably used the Słupecki family’s extensive theological library in his endeavors. H. Gmiterek, Zbigniew Słupecki (zm. 1594), PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000), 119–​ 120; H. Kowalska, Feliks Słupecki (ok. 1571–​1616), PSB vol. 39 (1999), 102–​105. 56 D. Kuźmina, Katechizmy w Rzeczypospolitej w XVI i początku XVII wieku (Warszawa: 2002), 107–​113. 57 Petkunas, Holy, 118. 58 Ibid., 116.

60 

Chapter 4

Finally, we can assume that Kraiński did not take Łaski’s Forma as his starting point, but rather used some local liturgy (or liturgies) that he then creatively expanded on his own. This insight comes from minutes of the 1600 Chęciny (Cracow) district synod held in Chmielnik. Those assembled resolved that, “[the] ‘Forma’ of Rev. Krzysztof should be corrected according to ‘Forma’ of the illustrious memory of Rev. Jan Łaski mutatis mutandis, and that which is closer to the word of God.”59 The Lesser Polish Reformed in the Chęciny district judged that Kraiński’s work was not based on Łaski’s Forma, but thought it should have been. The differences between Kraiński’s 1599 Forma and Łaski’s text would explain why the liturgy accepted in 1601 was so different from Kraiński’s original—​other districts found it too innovative and verbose. To reiterate: Kraiński’s 1599 Forma was probably the fruit of an earlier harmonization of liturgy effected by the Lublin district of the Lesser Polish Reformed Church sometime between the years 1566–​1581. While Kraiński was, no doubt, the author of most of the prayers and the editor of the final text, he used liturgical resources from other Reformed churches in Europe—​Łaski’s Forma ac Ratio was neither the only nor the most important source. It was now Kraiński who pushed towards uniformity in the Lesser Poland Reformed Church. During the October 1598 provincial synod in Ożarów, he was elected superintendent of the Church for a one-​year term and he convinced those gathered to enforce liturgical uniformity. At that synod, an unusual number of decisions were made about liturgical matters, in fact, more than had been made at any of the previous Lesser Poland’s synods. Those gathered decided that each congregation should have a communion set (tray, chalice, baptismal basin, tablecloth) and a Bible. They denounced the use of crucifixes and exorcisms and instructed that the Lord’s Supper be celebrated at least four times a year, with permission to do so more often if it were to be “edifying.” Krzysztof Kraiński’s Forma was to be given to other seniors for review and comments.60 Due to the lack of records, we cannot tell what all the districts thought of the 1599 Forma—​we only know that the Chęciny district was not overly impressed.61 During the next provincial synod held in Ożarów in 1600, the issue reappeared, which suggests that Kraiński’s liturgy was received with similar restraint in other districts as well. Now a special seven-​person committee was appointed to study his Forma. It was composed of the senior and the konsenior of the Sandomir district, the senior and the konsenior of the Chęciny district, 59 asr iii, 215. 60 Ibid., 197–​198. 61 Ibid., 215.

The Liturgy

61

Maciej Rybiński (1566–​1612), the Brethren minister from Baranów Sandomierski,62 the newly re-​elected superintendent, Franciszek Jezierski, and Kraiński himself. The composition of the committee itself is interesting because the majority of the members came from outside the Lublin district: two ministers came from the Chęciny district critical of the Forma, two from the Sandomir district (whose views on the subject are unknown), and one, Rybiński, from the Brethren ministers working in the Sandomir area.63 Rybiński, without any official mandate from the Brethren, no doubt represented their liturgical traditions on the committee. It was thus the first joint liturgical endeavor since the failed Koźminek Union almost half a century earlier. His inclusion was not only a sign of the two Churches again drawing closer together but also a recognition of the fact that the Brethren were far more liturgically coherent that the Lesser Poles. The committee met in Czyżów in November that year and revised the 1599 Forma considerably. Its main work came down to condensing the liturgy, which was thought to be too verbose.64 It produced a unified liturgy so quickly that the Lublin delegates assembled at their district’s synod in Kock in February of 1601 could already study it for use in the district. Other liturgical matters were raised during that assembly: the irritated Lublin delegates asked the owner of Kock to finally remove the main altar from the church and put a plain table in its place, while the Zbąski family was asked to purge the church on their estate of Łysobyki of paintings and altars.65 The Chęciny district synod also approved the new liturgy and set aside a whole day to allow the ministers to make copies of it for their own use.66 The liturgy was officially approved during the 1601 provincial synod in Wodzisław. The district seniors were charged with distributing it to ministers within their jurisdictions and making sure that it was used. The printed version came out in 1602 as Porządek Nabożeństwa (The Order of Divine Service) and was soon distributed to the local synods—​the Lublin district called it “sacrosanct,” no doubt pleased with its input in this endeavor. The provincial synod of 1602 once again affirmed it as the binding liturgical form for all districts. The Lesser Poland Reformed Church now had a unified liturgy, almost 50 years after its formation.67 62 Gmiterek, Maciej Rybiński, PSB, 339–​340. 63 asr iii 217–​218. Petkunas lists only 4 members: Holy, 117. 64 Petkunas, Holy, 116–​120. 65 asr iii 220. 66 Ibid., 221. 67 Ibid., 229, 236, 241.

62 

Chapter 4

Naturally, its implementation took some time. The Lesser Polish Reformed were now confronted with two problems: rooting out any Catholic or Lutheran vestiges, and re-​asserting themselves over and against the Brethren ministers who had started taking pulpits in Lesser Poland that were sponsored by their magnate patrons. We only have the minutes from the Chęciny and Lublin districts from that time and there seems to be almost no liturgical nonconformity in the latter. Thus, we are limited to tracing the developments in one district—​albeit one of the most important ones in the Church—​with occasional glimpses into the progress of other districts. The provincial synod in 1602 prescribed the new Porządek Nabożeństwa for all congregations, but made an exception for the congregation in Pomorzany (in the Ruś district) to maintain its tradition of receiving the Lord’s Supper kneeling—​with the important caveat that “the local minister should advise [them to] stand, and gently should get the idea [of kneeling] from his auditors’ heads.”68 This was explicitly to be an exception, and it was not to be copied in any other church in that area.69 In 1603, the Chęciny district synod ordered the sizeable congregation in Gorlice to cease using “ceremonies differing from our congregations’ ceremonies, to which the folk have stubbornly attached themselves and are used to.”70 There is reason to suspect they were Lutheran. The minister serving Gorlice from 1570 until at least 1595 was an ex-​Catholic priest from Krosno, and the Roman Catholic bishop’s visitation lists the congregation as “Lutheran” rather than Reformed. Given Gorlice’s proximity to the border and the thriving Lutheran congregations in Slovakia, Lutheran influences in that town’s liturgy would not be surprising. The implementation of the changes brought by the 1602 Porządek Nabożeństwa caused some discontent among the faithful accustomed to a more elaborate liturgical tradition. Perhaps this is why the local noble patroness Agnieszka Pieniążek requested in 1609 that the Reformed minister debate a Roman Catholic priest.71 In 1612, the Reformed in the Lublin district were very much annoyed when they found out that “in some congregations, the bells are rung when the Credo is sung,”72 and asked that the provincial synod intervene. The wording in Polish is ambiguous, but the Lublin Calvinists were probably referring to 68 Ibid., 242. 69 A similar dispute was recorded in the Cracow congregation: Kronika Zboru Ewangelickiego Krakowskiego przez X. Wojciecha Węgierskiego (Kraków: 2007), 108–​113. 70 asr iii, 244. 71 Ibid., 297; Pawelec, Bartłomiej Bythner, 82. 72 asr iii, 333.

The Liturgy

63

congregations outside their district—​hence the need to invoke the provincial authorities. The provincial synod that met the same year in Ożarów complied and stated in its canon no. 6 that “in all congregations there should be order and sobriety, citra superstitionem et idolatriam, to which pastores loci should attend to.”73 No details of places or customs were mentioned, unfortunately, and we do not know which congregations were being discussed. After a decade of using the 1602 Porządek Nabożeństwa, some corrections were thought to be necessary, and it was reissued with minor changes in 1614. It was given a nearly identical title, Porządek Nabożeństwa, implying that it was a second edition of the 1602 Porządek. This 1614 Porządek Nabożeństwa remained the Lesser Poland’s official liturgy until 1637.74 A bigger challenge to liturgical uniformity in the Lesser Polish Reformed Church stemmed from the otherwise-​beneficial trend of Greater Poland magnates and their families moving to Lesser Poland.75 When Andrzej Leszczyński (c. 1559–​1606) moved to Baranów Sandomierski he brought with him his Brethren minister, the above-​mentioned Maciej Rybiński. The latter introduced Brethren liturgy, to the dismay of his neighboring Calvinist pastors. It did not stop at Baranów: when Leszczyński inherited the town of Beresteczko in Wołyń, he settled two Brethren ministers there. Also, his sisters Barbara Słupecka and Duchess Marianna Zasławska, after marrying into families in Lesser Poland, brought their own Brethren chaplains with them and settled them on their estates. This influx of Brethren ministers caused serious discontent. The Lesser Poland Reformed resented this intrusion and demanded that Brethren ministers present their letters to the local Calvinist seniors, who would then approve (or more likely, not approve) their calls. The Brethren maintained that because their minister was in charge of a congregation, that meant that these congregations came under Brethren jurisdiction too, and no such permission from the Lesser Poland Reformed was needed. Initially, the Brethren spoke from a position of superiority. In 1596, when Rybiński had to defend his calling to Baranów Sandomierski, the Brethren convocation in Gołuchów stated curtly: “he was sent properly by seniors of our confession, and did not need or does not need a recommendation from anything or anyone else.”76 It pressed the issue on “iurisdictiam [!]‌of seniors, as well as 73 Ibid., 336. 74 Petkunas, Holy, 124–​125. 75 H. Gmiterek, “Duchowni Jednoty Braci Czeskich w zborach kalwińskich Małopolski i Litwy w pierwszej połowie XVII. wieku,” Historica. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultas philosophica (Historica Sborník prací historických) 31 (2002): 157–​164. 76 asr iv, 118.

64 

Chapter 4

ceremonies used in congregations, not countries or lands, but confessions, to which the patron [adheres to—​K.B.] the congregation and minister, modum prescribere solent.”77 Knowing that this would not sit well with the Reformed in the local Sandomir district, the Brethren did agree to write to that district’s senior “amico modo” about Rybiński, but simultaneously sent Brethren hymnals to Baranów for the congregation’s use.78 The conflict was palpable throughout the early 1600s. In 1602, Feliks Słupecki, married to Barbara Leszczyńska, asked his Reformed district for permission to call a Brethren pastor to his populous and important congregation in Opole Lubelskie. This was granted, with the caveat: “that [the minister] be sent not with ceremonies [Brethren liturgy] but for ceremonies.”79 Słupecki assured the Reformed that he would have it no other way. The suspicion of Lesser Poland’s Reformed was not unfounded though: at the same time, the Brethren agreed to send a minister to Słupecki, where he was “to serve with our ceremonies,”80 which indeed were introduced into the Opole congregation. Because Słupecki was a major patron of the Church, the Lesser Poland Reformed did not press it further; but they were not happy. Time proved their concerns justified: a few years later Słupecki asked permission to receive communion while kneeling (in the Brethren fashion), and then to fast during Marian Holidays, before finally converting to Roman Catholicism in 1615.81 Furthermore, the Brethren ministers in Baranów were notorious for ignoring the local Reformed synods, which did little to endear them to the Calvinists. By 1610, the relations became quite strained: the Brethren complained that two of their ministers serving in congregations in Wołyń, despite having permission from Krzysztof Kraiński, and who were using the Porządek, were nonetheless personally insulted by him. The Brethren Synod of 1610 tersely stated that they were “full of Rev. Kraiński’s personal attacks.”82 In the end, Reformed solidarity and goodwill prevailed, no doubt re-​kindled after the civil war of 1606–​1609, which was disastrous for Crown’s Protestants. A  1615 meeting of the leaders of the Lesser Poland’s and Brethren Churches worked out a resolution to these conflicts. Under this compromise, the

77 Ibid., 118. 78 Ibid., 118. 79 Ibid., 236. 80 Ibid., 169. 81 H. Kowalska, Barbara Słupecka (ok.1582–​1652), PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000), 101–​102; idem, Feliks Słupecki, PSB, 102–​105. 82 asr iv, 217, 220, 225.

The Liturgy

65

Brethren agreed not to send any of their ministers voluntarily to Lesser Poland without the local senior’s request. Once a Brethren minister was sent and installed, he was to take part in the local synods and conform to the local customs and liturgies.83 Thus, by 1620 the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland achieved liturgical conformity; moreover, it managed to enforce its liturgical customs on the Brethren ministers serving in their congregations. 4.3

Liturgical Developments in the Greater Poland Brethren Churches

Compared to the long and convoluted development of liturgy in Lesser Poland, worship in Brethren churches located in Greater Poland was, at first glance, surprisingly uniform. The Brethren continued to use their own liturgy and were reluctant to make any major changes. Only when pressed by the Calvinists did they concede that taking the Lord’s Supper while standing was acceptable, though they preferred that their faithful kneel. Minutes of the Brethren’s synods mention very few liturgical discrepancies. We do know that where the Brethren took over former Roman Catholic churches, side altars were removed, but the main altar was retained for some time to help make the transition gradual and less shocking for the “simpletons.”84 By the mid 1570s, Brethren authorities decided that enough time had passed and ordered the removal of those that still remained in churches. The synod in Poznań in 1573 called for ministers to “cleanse idolatrous things from churches, and sell them with the consent of patrons,” a provision that was repeated at the synod two years later.85 Yet underneath the surface of uniformity, there were discrepancies. In 1608, a local patron, Adam Grodziecki (d. 1647), complained that the minister on his estate of Wyszyna had introduced a new confession liturgy. His concern was not about the liturgy itself, which he insisted “is actually good, but that this custom seems to have been taken from the papacy, and thus fosters suspicion that we learn from papists.”86 The senior spoke to the minister in question in private, but it is not at all clear whether he was actually told to stop using it. Ironically, the patron who was so diligent in keeping watch for popish

83 asr iii, 346–​347. 84 asr i, 113. 85 asr iv, 17, 41. 86 Ibid., 380.

66 

Chapter 4

liturgical innovations himself converted to Roman Catholicism less than a decade later.87 We know that the laity wanted the Brethren to change its custom of praying quietly, and demanded public prayers be said out loud. These demands were repeated in 1577, 1579, and 1600.88 The seniors refused, claiming this was not the Brethren’s custom. However, they were out of touch with not only the faithful but increasingly also with their own clergy. In 1600, the Brethren ministers stated in their petitions to the synod, “The ministers ask that they might be briefly told, so they might hear and know, why not to pray with unison voices, since the simpleton plebeians and their lordship the patrons in some places ask and demand this forcefully.”89 Interestingly, the synod did not address this issue at all, unless praying in unison was the “innovation in order” of which the younger ministers were accused, and which was blamed as the cause of “rotting away” of Brethren polity.90 It is likely that individual ministers simply introduced prayers said aloud on their own initiative, knowing it was something the faithful desired, and the problem disappeared after the death of the stern senior Symeon Teofil Turnowski in 1608. The most striking feature of the Brethren liturgical history is that from 1550, when they arrived in Poland, until 1637, the Brethren never produced an official liturgy in Polish. A Protestant church, dedicated to services in the vernacular, operated for almost a hundred years without any official translation of its liturgy into the language of its people. What is even more interesting is that this seems to have been almost completely ignored by historians writing about the Brethren or about the unification of Polish Reformed liturgy.91 The lack of an official liturgy in Polish sheds light on why the Brethren were so willing to accept the 1634 Włodawa Convocation and the 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda. We have a few surviving copies of private translations into Polish from the end of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries by individual ministers. They are ordination, marriage, and visitation liturgies. We do not know if such translations were done by all ministers and if some translations were more popular than others. No doubt using senior Turnowski’s translation (which 87 W. Dworzaczek, Adam Grodziecki (zm. 1647), PSB, vol. 8 (1960), 620–​ 622; J. Dworzaczkowa, “Konwersje na katolicyzm szlachty ewangelickiej wyznania czeskiego w Wielkopolsce w XVI I XVII wieku,” OiRwP 50 (2006): 93. 88 asr iv, 59, 341, 345. 89 Ibid., 364. 90 Ibid., 164. 91 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, devotes two sentences to it on page  77. Tworek, “Starania,” 117–​139 does not mention it at all. Gmiterek, “Problemy,” 98–​99 states it but draws no conclusions from this.

The Liturgy

67

is one that survived) protected ministers from any unpleasant repercussions during his visitations of their congregations. Intriguingly, we do not have any surviving copy of a personal translation of the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper. Was it because these were deliberately destroyed after 1637? Or, as hardly seems likely, were there no such translations at all? The lack of any one prescribed form in Polish led to some variation at the local church level. In the early seventeenth century, the Brethren expanded to include congregations in the Royal Prussia with Dutch, German, and Scottish speakers, for whom liturgies in Czech would be of little use.92 Additionally, by the end of the sixteenth century, a new generation of ministers grew up whose native language was Polish, English, or German—​but not Czech. These new ministers were being educated in Switzerland and the Netherlands, where standard liturgies were the norm, and so the lack of a Polish liturgy became increasingly problematic. Also, the publication in 1612 of their Agenda in German in Königsberg, proves that the Brethren were capable of translation work. It is no coincidence that the expansion to Royal Prussia, where the use of German was widespread, happened around the same time that their liturgy was translated and printed in German. Why this never happened with Polish is hard to explain.93 From the minutes of the Brethren synods, we do know that from at least the 1570s there were continual petitions from clergy to translate the Brethren liturgy into Polish. Synods in 1577 and 1578, while stipulating that no changes to the liturgy were allowed, also pressed for a Polish hymnal (Kancjonał).94 When nothing happened for a few years, the ministers raised the issue again in 1582, asking for at least a hymnal in Polish to be prepared. This time the senior Izrael acknowledged the need but did little to get the work started. It was only because senior Symeon Teofil Turnowski took the task on himself that any progress was achieved. We do not know if the ministers that year also petitioned for a separate liturgy—​their petitions have not been preserved. In 1587, Turnowski’s efforts bore fruit in the form of the first Brethren hymnal in Polish—​printed in Toruń and titled Kancjonał albo pieśni duchowne95—​but still no work was done on a liturgical translation. Not much happened in the next decade either. In 1596, we hear of Turnowski’s translation of the liturgical form for parish visitation, which was approved, 92

A. Klemp, Protestanci w dobrach prywatnych w Prusach Królewskich od drugiej połowy XVII do drugiej połowy XVIII wieku (Gdańsk: 1994), 138–​140. 93 Klemp, Protestanci, 138, 219–​220. 94 asr iv, 47, 50, 53, 82, 343. 95 Ibid., 99.

68 

Chapter 4

and which survives in manuscript.96 During the 1598 synod, the ministers pressed again for set prayers to be allowed to be said in church—​a move that would have no doubt forced the Brethren to move more quickly on a Polish translation of the rest of the liturgy. However, the seniors decided that such a change required consent of the Brethren in Bohemia, and deferred the decision to them. The 1598 synod in Boleslaw in Bohemia, though, did not address this issue at all. Only in 1599 did the Brethren seniors decide to revise the Polish hymnal and have it reprinted in 1601 in Toruń. Again, they did not act on any liturgical translation work.97 Naturally, the ministers grew frustrated. In their petitions for the 1600 synod in Gołuchów, they stated in point seventeen “a request and a reminder for corrected agendas.”98 The time was also more opportune for this, as the Lublin Reformed had only in 1599 published their liturgy, and now seemed more advanced on the issue than the Brethren. The 1600 synod in Gołuchów thus had to deal with the pressure from both within (ministers and laity) and outside (the Lesser Polish Brethren and their liturgical work). The senior Symeon Teofil Turnowski had been working on the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper, as the minutes clearly state: “The prayer before serving with benediction bread and wine […] by brother Symeon ad imitationem God’s laws was written, read out loud and evaluated; item it is along the pattern of old Brethren agendas, [was] praised by a concordance suffragio of all elders, which we are to give to our Czech Brethren [for approval].”99 This work was not to stop there—​the synod decided “all our agendas are to be polished and made ready for the next, God willing, synod.”100 The synod also ordered that a separate liturgy be written for the visitation of the sick. Having done that, it felt it could now deal with the Lesser Polish Reformed and their desire to unify liturgy in the whole of the realm. With a condescending remark that Kraiński published his liturgy “privately,” and that this “disturbed the Church,” the Brethren decided to raise the issue of liturgical conformity during a general synod of the Polish Protestants. They added, “And that is why, that we have ours well-​polished and tried out ready at hand.”101 Once again, little happened. In 1602, those gathered simply declared that they were working on the agendas.102 If senior Turnowski was responsible for 96 Ibid., 119. 97 Ibid., 134, 155. 98 Ibid., 365. 99 Ibid., 162. 100 Ibid., 162. 101 Ibid., 162–​163. 102 Ibid., 174.

The Liturgy

69

the translation work, his frailty and advanced age would explain the lack of progress. In February 1608, only a few months before his death, the seniors postponed the decision about the translation until the next synod.103 That synod did not meet until September, when the work was divided between two people. Jan Turnowski the Younger (d. 1629) was told to quickly edit revisions to the psalter so it could be published, while the senior Maciej Rybiński was to translate the catechism and confession—​and probably also the liturgy—​into Polish.104 The choice of Rybiński is telling because until earlier that year, he had been the minister in Baranów Sandomierski in Lesser Poland, and in 1600 he had been on the committee that reviewed Kraiński’s Forma and produced the 1602 Porządek Nabożeństwa.105 He thus had the knowledge of both Brethren and Lesser Poland liturgical practice. The 1609 synod further instructed the senior Marcin Giertych (d. 1629) to prepare a separate order for the election and introduction into the office of lay elders. Again, the choice was not coincidental: Giertych ministered until 1608 in Beresteczko in Wołyń, was even elected the konsenior of the Wołyń district of the Polish Reformed Church, and used the 1602 Lesser Poland’s Porządek Nabożeństwa.106 The same synod also approved Kraiński’s Catechism, noting with approval the “addition of symbols and some prayers”—​a clear indication that it was now acceptable to use fixed prayers read out loud.107 During the March 1609 convocation the senior Rybiński was charged with translating to Polish the order for ordination and installation of seniors, which he indeed managed to finish in 1611.108 The next synod did not gather until 1611 and it focused on other issues. During the meetings of all the Brethren seniors and konseniors in October 1611, it was restated that senior Rybiński was still in charge of the translation work. He was, however, increasingly old and frail, and perhaps to help him and to speed things along, the seniors decided that konsenior Jan Turnowski should discuss it with him. There seems to have been some impatience expressed by those gathered, who asked that Rybiński review his translations and finally “bring it to fruition”109 after so many years. The same request was repeated

1 03 Ibid., 186. 104 Ibid., 192. 105 Ibid., 192; Gmiterek, Maciej Rybiński, PSB, 338–​339. 106 asr iv, 192, 415. 107 Ibid., 199–​200; T. Grabowski, Marcin Gracjan Giertich (1568–​1629), PSB, vol. 7 (1948/​ 1958), 405. 108 asr iv, 198. 109 Ibid., 238.

70 

Chapter 4

during the January 1612 convocation of the seniors. However, Rybiński died on May 22, 1612, and with his death, the idea of a Polish translation of the Brethren liturgy died. What became of his endeavors we do not know—​perhaps they were not that advanced, which is why there was no follow-​up work done. Another factor to be kept in mind was the convergence of the Brethren and the Calvinist churches in Kujawy and Royal Prussia beginning in 1609.110 Once a group of about twenty congregations with its own liturgy, by the 1620s the Kujawy Calvinists had shrunk to just five congregations. The union was finalized in 1627, when Kujawy’s superintendent Daniel Mikołajewski (1550–​1633) and two pastors were received into the Brethren and assigned to Brethren congregations.111 The lack of the Kujawy Calvinists’ records or liturgy makes it difficult to give concrete examples of liturgical change. We do know that the 1627 fusion of the two Churches and Mikołajewski’s election as senior did not sit well with all members of the Brethren. Two years later, Barbara Przyjemska, the widow of Mikołajewski’s former pupil Władysław Przyjemski, removed the Brethren minister from her estate in Cienin and requested that the Brethren install a man of her choice, a renegade Roman Catholic priest. The Brethren refused. In 1634, she replaced the ex-​priest with a Lutheran minister. This has been proposed to be as a result of her discomfort with the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination.112 This theory lacks one essential element: any proof that the senior Mikołajewski forced the Brethren minister in Cienin to preach about predestination. There is another, much simpler, explanation for what transpired at Cienin—​ Barbara Przyjemska disliked the Calvinist liturgical influences that she saw as encroaching on her church. By the mid-​1630s it was not only the former Kujawy Calvinists in the Brethren churches, but also the accelerating talks with the other Reformed churches that unsettled her. Barbara Przyjemska, born into the Leszczyński family, was probably attached to the old liturgical worship style of the Brethren that was now quickly eroding under Reformed influence. Moreover, the congregation in Cienin had a tradition of ministers educated at Lutheran Wittenberg. In 1637 after she had moved to Poznań, her son Rafał Przyjemski (d. 1644) removed the Lutheran priest from Cienin and reintroduced a Brethren minister. Przyjemski, unlike his mother, had numerous links 1 10 Ibid., 203–​208. 111 Ibid., 310–​312; Sipayłło, Daniel Mikołajewski, PSB, 154–​156. 112 J. Dworzaczkowa, “Zbory braci czeskich w dawnym powiecie konińskim” in idem, Z dziejów barci czeskich w Polsce (Poznań: 2003), 46–​47; H. Kowalska, Władysław Przyjemski (ok. 1571–​1627), PSB, vol. 29 (1986), 188–​189.

The Liturgy

71

with the Reformed: He had been active in the defense of the Lublin Reformed congregation in 1633, and studied and worshipped with Calvinists most his life. Thus, he had no problem with the Calvinist liturgy of the Great Gdańsk Agenda.113 Barbara Przyjemska’s choice of a non-​Brethren minister in 1629 was not a theological dissent, or not just a theological dissent, but rather a sign of her displeasure at the liturgical direction in which the Brethren were going.114 In summary, though much more liturgically unified then the early Calvinists in Lesser Poland, the Brethren too experienced liturgical developments:  the abandonment of silent prayer in worship by the early seventeenth century and the increasing influence of Reformed liturgies, even as they kept their own liturgical fashions till the 1630s. However, this liturgical uniqueness came under increasing strain with the lack of any official translation of the liturgy into ­Polish. 4.4

Reformed Liturgy in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1550–​1621

We know very little about the liturgy used in the Lithuanian Reformed churches before 1611, because in that year a Catholic mob torched the Reformed church and its archives in Vilnius.115 Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black took up the Reformation cause and in 1553 established a Protestant congregation in his residence in Brześć Litewski. Initially a Lutheran sympathizer, by 1556 Radziwiłł the Black had moved to the Reformed camp.116 In 1556, he published his own confession of faith, Responsum Illustrimi Principis. He called for a return to primitive, apostolic Christianity; the removal of images, statues, and altars from churches; communion in both kinds for the laity; and the abandonment of clerical vestments as well as the notion that mass was a sacrifice. Szymon Zacjusz (c. 1507–​c. 1577), his court preacher, strengthened his theological convictions. Zacjusz was instrumental in establishing the first Reformed congregation in Pińczów, in Lesser Poland, and found his way to the Radziwiłł court after being forced to flee during the 1551 “dispersio ministrorum.” It would be tempting to speculate that Zacjusz brought with him liturgical forms from Lesser Poland, but as we have noted, the church there had none at that time. It is safer to say that Zacjusz and 1 13 Dworzaczkowa, “Zbory braci czeskich,” 42–​44. 114 Ibid., 46–​47. 115 Learning from this event, the Lithuanian Church decided to keep a number of copies of the proceedings in different places, which allowed them to survive to this day. 116 Lulewicz, Mikołaj Radziwiłł zwany Czarnym, PSB, 335–​347.

72 

Chapter 4

Radziwiłł developed their own liturgical practices although we do not know what these might have looked like. In December 1557, Radziwiłł the Black decided that the time was ripe. He moved Zacjusz to his residence in Vilnius, where he established an official Reformed congregation. Between December 1557 and December 1558, Duke Radziwiłł hosted a series of meetings, later deemed the first synods of the Lithuanian Reformed Church. In January 1558, Zacjusz was chosen as superintendent of the new Church, only to be moved in December to the position of superintendent of the Podlasie district when the Church was divided into two provinces: Vilnius and Podlasie. The next years saw an explosion of Reformed congregations being established in private estates as the nobility flocked to Calvinism from both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is interesting to note that while Latin churches were often transformed into Reformed congregations, only in exceptional cases did the nobles in Lithuania and Żmudź repurpose the Eastern Orthodox churches on their estates for Calvinist worship. Most chose to build new church edifices instead. Again, we have little information about the liturgical aspects of the new and expanding Reformed Church. We do know, however that in March 1557 Łaski visited Vilnius, where he met with Radziwiłł the Black, and no doubt used this occasion to promote his Forma ac Ratio in the Lithuanian churches. The Lesser Polish Reformed had quickly embraced the Forma, and given the close ties between the two Churches, there can be little doubt that this happened in Lithuania as well. Furthermore, during the 1558 synod in Wodzisław, the Lithuanian delegation headed by Zacjusz participated in the discussion on both theology and liturgy. In the following years, most likely thanks to the prodding of Radziwiłł, Łaski’s liturgy became the liturgical standard of the Reformed churches in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.117 All of this occurred while the Lithuanian Reformed Church was becoming embroiled in the Unitarian controversy. While the magnates in Lesser Poland opted for Orthodox Calvinism and resisted the clergy-​led anti-​Trinitarians, in the Grand Duchy the Unitarians found an ally in Radziwiłł the Black. When Zacjusz dared to criticize them, Radziwiłł simply fired him and had him sent back to Lesser Poland. During the 1565 synod in Mordy, the majority of the Lithuanian clergy backed the Unitarian position, and Radziwiłł the Black began purging his estates of Calvinist ministers and replacing them with Unitarians. The Reformed Church in Lithuania survived in large part by chance—​ Radziwiłł the Black died in 1565. His cousin, Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Red, 117 Petkunas, Holy, 156–​157.

The Liturgy

73

an Orthodox Calvinist, took on his position.118 Radziwiłł the Red reversed his cousin’s religious policy but had to proceed slowly and carefully:  Unitarian ministers were still residing in Radziwiłł’s churches in the early 1570s. After the death of Radziwiłł the Black, the Unitarians found another patron in his nephew Jan Kiszka (d. 1592).119 Kiszka shielded them on his estates, and having purged their ranks of radical elements like Czechowic and Budny, united them in a strong and conservative Unitarian Church that for some time competed on equal terms with the Reformed. The 1563 Katechizm published in Nieśwież (hence called Nieśwież Catechism) was trideistic and anti-​Trinitarian in its theology, but the Reformed Churches used it nonetheless because they had no other. The Reformed admitted later that “many of our congregations came to the opinion and suspicion both of Arianism and Macedonianism.”120 The years 1565–​1592 were difficult for the Reformed in the Grand Duchy: They struggled to stay clear of both Unitarianism and the growing counterreformation. All four sons of Radziwiłł the Black converted to Roman Catholicism by 1572 and became its ardent agents. Once again, a providential death came to the aid of the Reformed and to the peril of the Unitarians. In 1592, the Unitarian patron John Kiszka died childless, and his estates went to his Reformed heirs who began to remove Unitarian ministers and replace them with Reformed clergy. The cautious and gradual evolution of the Lithuanian Church back to Trinitarian Christianity under Duke Radziwiłł the Red and his son is most evident in the publication of its catechisms and liturgy. The anti-​Trinitarian 1563 Nieśwież Catechism was revised and re-​published in 1594 in Vilnius, under the auspices of the Reformed. The new edition included an explicit polemic against Anabaptists and Judaizers (the most prevalent factions of Unitarianism in the Grand Duchy) and an assortment of hymns where not just the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit were mentioned. In that respect, it was an improvement on the 1563 edition. However, prayers were still addressed to “Three Separate Persons of One Godhead” and lacked even one single reference to the term “Holy Trinity.”121 What the Lithuanians might have felt as a significant improvement was not viewed as such by the other Commonwealth Protestants. The 1594 Katechizm caused a scandal during the General Synod held in 1595 in Toruń. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Reformed superintendent of Lesser Poland, 1 18 Lulewicz, Mikołaj Radziwiłł zwany Rudym, PSB, 321–​334. 119 Tazbir, Jan Kiszka, PSB, 507–​508. 120 A. Kawecka-​Gryczowa, “Kancjonały Protestanckie na Litwie,” RwP 4 (1926): 137. 121 Sławiński, Toruński, 138–​139.

74 

Chapter 4

Franciszek Jezierski, bluntly accused his Lithuanian brethren of Unitarianism. Shockingly, the Lithuanian delegates pleaded guilty to that charge. The minister Jakub Popowski said in his defense that during the most recent Lithuanian synod, ministers were instructed to use the term “Trinity” as biblical, and promised—​on behalf of his fellow ministers—​to do better in the future. The palatine of Mińsk, Jan Abramowicz (d. 1602),122 also conceded that the charge was true. He insisted that the latest synod as well as patrons enforce a Trinitarian subscription on all Lithuanian clergy, but he also admitted that not all the ministers agreed. How profoundly Unitarian ideas penetrated the Reformed Church can be seen in an oath that the third Lithuanian delegate, Rafał Zbirowski, took to vouch for his orthodoxy. While insisting that he believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he begged those assembled to allow him to abstain from using the term “Holy Trinity,” but not to think ill of it. Not wishing to embarrass the Lithuanian Reformed further, those assembled dropped the matter, but passed a canon (no. 7) in the final proceedings that charged all ministers to use the term “Trinity” in their prayers and sermons on regular basis or face charges of heresy.123 Perhaps the humiliation during the 1595 General Synod encouraged the Lithuanian Reformed to act more decidedly. In 1598, they published another Katechizm, this time replete with references to the Holy Trinity in prayers and hymns—​the material for it was taken primarily from Brethren hymnal.124 In their desperate and moderately successful fight to distance themselves from the Unitarians, just as in Lesser Poland, the Lithuanian Reformed used liturgy—​particularly its most visible facet—​the Lord’s Supper. We recall that the Unitarians retained Łaski’s pattern of receiving the sacrament seated. In order to differentiate themselves, the Reformed now insisted that the sacrament be received while standing. In 1578, the General Synod had already allowed for two forms of receiving the sacrament: kneeling (for the Brethren and Lutherans) and standing (for the Reformed).125 These provisions were reiterated in the 1581 Lithuanian Forma albo porządek, which apart from that detail was essentially Łaski’s Forma ac Ratio with minor corrections. The same allowances were made in all subsequent printings of the liturgy (1594, 1598, 1600).126 We have very little information for the period from 1595–​1612. We do know that the modified Forma ac Ratio became the prevalent liturgy in the Duchy by 1 22 K. Tyszkowski, Jan Abramowicz (zm. 1602), PSB, vol. 1 (1935), 13. 123 asr iii, 134–​135; Sławiński, Toruński, 243–​250. 124 Kawecka-​Gryczowa, Kancjonały, 139; Petkunas, Holy, 195. 125 asr iii, 40. 126 Petkunas, Holy, 165–​166.

The Liturgy

75

the seventeenth century. We can also assume that by that time, the interior of most Reformed churches had been purged of images, statues, and even organs. Exceptions were so few that they stood out: Duke Jerzy Radziwiłł (1578–​1613), installed organs in his newly built Reformed church in Wijżuny.127 He also introduced liturgical vestments, fonts for holy water, candlesticks, and other “popish” innovations. Perhaps his Lutheran wife, Zofia Zborowska, reinforced the duke’s high-​church inclinations. What is fascinating is that even after his death, these were not removed, and remained present up until the 1660s when the Roman Catholics used them as a pretext to seize the church on the grounds that it must have been Roman Catholic earlier. His nephew sued the intruders and it is clear from the nephew’s writings that this was an exception, and not the standard for the Lithuanian churches.128 Additionally, a Reformed church built in the 1630s in Słuck is described as having a table covered with red cloth, a pulpit, and two tables holding the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. It is unknown if this church had either ornamental candlesticks or fonts.129 The first discussion of liturgical matters after the 1611 Vilnius tumult comes from the acts of the July 1612 synod. The synod decided that liturgical matters would be dealt with the following year.130 In 1613, three ministers were chosen to draft a new liturgy and to implement it in the Vilnius congregation. Any changes or corrections would be based on this modified liturgy.131 The choice of the Vilnius congregation was wise, as it was the capital and the seat of the synod. Thus, in theory all ministers would sooner or later be acquainted with it. What came of this new liturgy was not to everyone’s satisfaction, and in 1617 another committee was appointed to work on a revision. What marked this initiative as distinct from any other in the Commonwealth was that this committee included an equal number of laymen and ministers. Cognizant of the failure of earlier attempts, the committee was ordered not to leave Vilnius until it had finished its work.132 The committee still proved unable to do so. Hoping, perhaps, to be a catalyst for liturgical reform like Kraiński, or unhappy with the direction the committee was taking, the minister Jan Zygrowiusz (d. 1624) published his own private version of the liturgy in 1618 and promptly distributed it to a number of congregations. Sadly, not a single copy has survived. There is reason to believe he 1 27 H. Lulewicz, Jerzy Radziwiłł (1578–​1613), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 234–​236. 128 J. Dyr, “Akcja ratowania zborów kalwińskich na Litwie,” OiRwP 17 (1972): 197. 129 B. J. K., Wspomnienia o Słucku, (Gniezno: 1905), 57–​58. 130 AS 1915, 7. 131 Ibid., 16–​17, 22. 132 Ibid., 42.

76 

Chapter 4

drew on the liturgical forms from Lesser Poland: Before 1611, he was a minister in Paniowce, in the Crown near the Turkish border, and served under the jurisdiction of the Lesser Polish Church where the 1602 Porządek Nabożeństwa had been officially adopted.133 What was acceptable behavior in Lesser Poland was not in the more presbyterian Lithuanian Reformed Church. The 1618 synod was furious and accused Zygrowiusz’s Catechism of harboring Unitarian inclinations. The fact that he had it printed by the Unitarian press did little to refute such accusations.134 A new committee was appointed to investigate the matter and reported to the 1619 synod, where a heated debate took place—​some favored a thorough revision of the 1618 and earlier liturgies and catechisms, while others wanted the synod to consult Lesser Poland’s liturgies and, presumably, to adopt them. In the end, the synod called yet another committee, which was charged with revising the catechism and the liturgy already in use. Any hymns with faint Roman Catholic or “Anabaptist” (still!) connotations were to be removed. The synod explicitly ordered that the catechism be based on the Heidelberg ­Catechism.135 The work was finally completed in 1620 and presented to that year’s synod. It is interesting to note that unlike the Lesser Poland and Brethren Churches, liturgy was considered a part of the catechism, together with the hymnal. This says volumes about the awareness of the importance of liturgy by the Lithuanian Reformed, who only twenty-​five years earlier were struggling to separate Reformed wheat from Unitarian chaff. The 1620 synod decided to accept the work of the committee and send it for publication. Its decision on the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper showed a division of the Lithuanian clergy on liturgical matters. There were to be two forms (liturgies) prepared: one based on the revision of Łaski’s Forma ac ratio as used in Lithuania, and one by another group of ministers—​“presented to us by some of our brethren”—​incorporating the forms of the Lithuanian and the Polish Reformed. Zygrowiusz and other ministers were well aware of the liturgical developments in the other provinces of Poland-​Lithuania, and wanted Łaski’s Forma replaced. This conjecture is reinforced by the fact that the next canon was devoted to the increasing number of ministers coming from the Crown to work in the Grand Duchy, and the proper procedures for such transfers.136 Just as in the case of Lesser Poland and the 1 33 134 135 136

asr iii, 657. AS 1915, 46. Ibid., 49–​50. Ibid., 55. A  year later the synod officially acknowledged a shortage of ministers and reversed itself—​ibid, 63.

The Liturgy

77

Brethren, here too, ministers from other parts of the country were sowers of liturgical dissent on the one hand and catalysts for greater liturgical uniformity in all three provinces on the other. The synod left the final decision on liturgy in the hands of Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł. He chose the version “more pleasing to Lithuanian hearts,”137 which was a subtle way of rejecting the liturgical innovations of the Lesser Poland Reformed. Thus, the 1621 Katechizm (and liturgy) was a small revision of Łaski’s Forma ac ratio. It was sent to all the congregations and declared the only permissible liturgy for the Church.138 With relatively little strife and effort (at least in comparison with the Lesser Polish Church), the Lithuanian Reformed achieved liturgical uniformity. Only a year later, however, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł changed his mind. 4.5

Toward a Unified Reformed Liturgy in Poland and Lithuania

Just as in the case of Church polity, the impetus for liturgical unification was a serious shortage of Bibles. It was brought up with little success in 1602 and 1613, both times by the Lesser Poland Calvinists—​but neither the Brethren nor the Lithuanian Church showed any interest in this venture.139 Things changed in 1622 when Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł ordered the Lithuanian Church to “consult without delay with the Crown’s lords de uniformitate of all prayers.”140 Those assembled in 1622 did not dare to say no to the duke directly and, while claiming willingness to consult with the Churches in Poland, advised “another time, for this is too short notice.” They expressed their reservation politely by adding “if there be any need”141—​which naturally meant that they thought there was none. No doubt the idea of reworking a freshly printed liturgy was not to their liking and they decided to stall to see if the duke’s interest in the matter would fade. Having heard of the duke’s intent, the Lesser Polish Brethren responded in 1625 during their provincial synod in Oksa and called for a meeting close to Lithuania where the question of a new translation of the Bible and a correction of the agendas could be discussed.142 The issue was also opportune for 1 37 Ibid., 55. 138 Ibid., 60. 139 asr iii, 347; Tworek, “Starania,” 117–​123. 140 AS 1915, 71. 141 Ibid., 73. 142 asr iii, 476–​477.

78 

Chapter 4

the Brethren: their senior Daniel Mikołajewski was the Bible’s main translator, and they were no doubt interested in finishing the matter, as well as getting the other two Churches to participate financially in the endeavor. The Brethren were also hoping that Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł would buy the Church’s headquarters, the town of Ostroróg. All this made them more responsive to any ecclesiastical wishes the duke might have.143 Faced with all this sudden enthusiasm, the Lithuanian Reformed had little choice but to send a high-​ranking delegation of four seniors to talk with the other two Churches in 1626. Their true feelings are embedded in the long instructions the delegates received, from which they were not to depart under any circumstances. The delegates should finalize the revision of the Bible, as well as “all other things necessary for the Church;” liturgical and other matters were to be discussed and settled. All this looked good prima facie, but the devil was in the details. When it came to the Bible, the Lithuanians only wanted minor revisions of the 1563 Brześć Bible and were not interested in a new translation. Hymns were to be unified with the Polish ones, provided the Lithuanian hymns from the recent editions be kept “all in toto.”144 The liturgy instructions were similar: While stating the desire to unify the rites for the Lord’s Supper, the Lithuanians were not to depart from their own forms, and were to criticize the Lesser Polish liturgy instead. Finally, they wished for the Lord’s Supper liturgy to be more restrained when it came to the number of hymns sung, unlike the Lesser Polish form.145 All of this would sabotage any liturgical unification, because the only unity the Lithuanians were willing to accept was having the other Churches embrace the Lithuanian liturgy.146 Ultimately, the instructions turned out to be an exercise in negotiation and merely provide insight into the motives of the Lithuanian Church—​the meeting did not come to pass for political reasons, and the matter was dropped. In 1627, the Lithuanian synod re-​iterated the prohibition of any liturgy other than the 1621 Lithuanian Forma, making a temporary allowance for the churches in Podlasie, where Lesser Poland’s influence was strong; however, even in Podlasie the district superintendent was instructed to settle the matter according to the wish of the Lithuanian Church. Probably due to the duke’s office as president of the synod, they paid lip service to work in the future for a unification of the rites in all the provinces.147 In the next years, the question of liturgical 143 The Brethren did not hold any synods in the years 1623–​1627 but convocations of seniors, and we only have short notes of what was discussed. asr iv, 306–​309. 144 AS 2011, 2. 145 Ibid., 1–​2. 146 Tworek, “Starania,” 124. 147 AS 2011, 17–​18.

The Liturgy

79

uniformity dropped out of the picture, and only the matter of the printing of a new Bible in Polish was discussed: The Lesser Poles and the Brethren pushed for a new translation, while the Lithuanians insisted the 1563 Brześć Bible be reprinted, perhaps with minor corrections.148 The idea of liturgical unification was revived in May 1632, this time by the Brethren gathered at their synod in Leszno. They wished to have Lesser Poland give up their superintendent, Tomasz Węgierski, so that he could become their Church’s senior. Realizing that they would have to offer something in return, the Brethren mentioned the idea of a possible unification of liturgies. They expressed a sentiment “that for the bigger advancement of God’s Glory there be conformitas in hymns, catechisms, and in forms or agendas of church services” and suggested that two ministers and one lay person be sent from each of the three Churches to work out a suitable agreement.149 The Lesser Poland Reformed Church focused only on the idea of liturgical unification. They suggested the three Churches send delegations in August 1633 to Orla in Podlasie, a property of Duke Janusz ii Radziwiłł (1612–​1655) and under the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian Church. The time was also ripe politically, as King Zygmunt iii Waza had died, and the whole country was gearing up for a new royal election, which the Protestants in the Commonwealth hoped would redress their grievances. During their 1633 synod, the Lithuanian Reformed expressed an “earnest desire” for conformity in rituals “in all congregations (in the Crown, the Grand Lithuania Duchy, and adjacent principalities)” but then added their conditions: The Lithuanian hymnal of 1621 must be retained with all its hymns, although new ones could be added, together with new prayers for “opportune occasions.” The Lithuanians agreed in principle to one liturgy for all three provinces, but insisted that it be guided by “simplicity and purity.” The fraction of the bread during communion was to be retained, but the Lithuanians insisted on eliminating any accommodations to allow kneeling when receiving communion or using hosts instead of bread—​something difficult for the Brethren to concede. The delegation consisted of three superintendents, a doctor of theology, and four lay noblemen from the inner circle of Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł:  Tomasz Wolan, Daniel Naborowski, Piotr Kochlewski, and Aleksander Przypkowski.150 The choice of the last two men was no accident: Aleksander Przypkowski hailed from Lesser Poland and had extensive family relations 1 48 asr iii, 506, 533–​534; asr iv, 314, 316, 321; AS 2011, 47–​48, 67. 149 asr iv, 330–​331. 150 AS 2011, 101–​102; Tworek, “Starania,” 117–​123.

80 

Chapter 4

there; Piotr Kochlewski came from Greater Poland, and was in his youth a member of the Brethren. It would seem that at least this time, the Lithuanians were more earnest in their efforts for reunification, and while their conditions were difficult, they were not as intractable as they had been only seven years before.151 The Brethren, who were first to make the proposal, chose their delegation during their July 1633 synod in Ostroróg. It consisted of four men: one senior, one konsenior, one minister (Jan Bythner, originally from Lesser Poland), and one lay nobleman. When it came to liturgical matters, the Brethren were content to have one liturgy—​in fact, they were ready to accept the Lesser Poland 1614 Porządek Nabożeństwa with minor corrections. Their most detailed instructions centered around a common hymnal, which the Brethren thought should be based on their own 1611 edition (naturally) with additions of hymns from the other two. Hymns should be numbered with numbers and not letters and should contain the psalms of David, preferably in Jan Kochanowski’s translation, and which should come before any other hymns.152 The Orla convocation was a success both in matters of polity, church discipline (Chapters  3 and 5) and liturgy. The majority of the work fell on the shoulders of Tomasz Węgierski. Tellingly, he was in charge of the communion liturgy, which was the most delicate part to negotiate. Węgierski had to come up with one liturgy that would be simple and pure, yet honor the high-​church tendencies of the Brethren, as well as Łaski’s heritage of Forma ac Ratio and the Lesser Polish 1614 Porządek Nabożeństwa. The Brethren insisted that kneeling during communion be allowed, while the Lesser Polish and Lithuanian Reformed found this unacceptable. The Reformed insisted on breaking the bread, while the Brethren wanted to use hosts, as was their tradition. His task seemed impossible.153 The work produced by Tomasz Węgierski was rightly labeled “the most significant liturgical production of the Reformed Churches in Poland and Lithuania.”154 In some ways, it was completely new to all provinces, but the biggest changes were in contrast to the Brethren liturgy. The service of holy communion began with a call to worship based on the 1621 Lithuanian liturgy. It then moved on to an exhortation to the Holy Spirit 151 AS 2011, 101–​102; Z. Trawicka, Piotr Kochlewski (zm. 1647), PSB, vol. 13 (1967), 216–​ 217; idem, “Działalność polityczna i reformacyjna Piotra Kochlewskiego,” OiRwP 8 (1963): 125–​148. 152 app abc 1492; Gmiterek, “Problemy,” 103–​106. 153 Gmiterek, Bracia czescy, 130–​135. 154 Petkunas, Holy, 177.

The Liturgy

81

and the hymn Veni Sancte Spiritus to one musical setting, following the 1614 Lesser Polish Porządek Nabożeństwa. The excommunication of the sinners followed, which addressed Lesser Polish and Lithuanian realities of competition with the Unitarians—​thus the explicit mention of “any who blaspheme the Holy Triune One God or his word.” An exhortation to make a confession and a confession of sins followed, which was based on the 1614 Porządek Nabożeństwa. As a nod to the Brethren, the prayers include a phrase “falling on our knees with our hearts,” which did not provide for kneeling as such during prayers as such, but allowed for the Brethren practice to continue. The liturgy also provided for an optional singing of Agnus Dei, something the Lesser Polish and Lithuanian Reformed thought had “popish” undertones, but which was used by the Brethren. Again, Węgierski was wise enough to make this part of the liturgy optional. This was followed by the absolution and a sung Apostles’ Creed. It is at this point that Węgierski departed from the Lithuanian and the Lesser Polish forms, and instead of continuing with the “Prayer towards the words of Christ,” he moved directly to the words of “Christ’s Testament,” with a lengthy explanation of the testament and a prayer of admonition. The Lord’s Prayer followed, an invitation to God’s table, and then the fraction. While Węgierski did use the word “bread,” the liturgy did not explicitly proscribe the use of hosts. The bread and the wine were to be distributed separately, like the Lesser Poles, not at the same time, as was the Lithuanian custom. Then an admonition “Credite et ne dubitate” was pronounced—​ something certainly to the liking of Lithuanians, as it was based on Łaski’s Forma. Following the distribution, two prayers of thanksgiving were added: a short one and a lengthier one based on a Brethren liturgy. A final exhortation to do good works followed, and the service concluded with the Aaronic blessing and a singing of a hymn. All in all, the proposed liturgy was a careful and masterful work that combined three different traditions while retaining coherence, flow, and elegance. The work of the committee was presented to the three Reformed Churches for approval. During the 1634 Brethren synod in Ostroróg, the Orla agreements were approved despite some opposition from the seniors—​the younger ministers and the lay delegates insisted the work be carried through to fruition. The Lesser Polish Reformed synod in Bełżyce was very pleased with the results, and suggested convening in September 1634 in Włodawa. Their delegation was to have ten pastors (two from each district) and seven lay delegates. The Lithuanians, whose liturgy had been considerably altered, were naturally not satisfied. The proceedings of the 1635 synod are visibly less enthusiastic than those of the Crown’s Calvinists, but nonetheless all provisions of the Orla Convocation

82 

Chapter 4

were accepted.155 Only minor reservations were made, with none on liturgical matters.156 Liturgically, the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation was a watershed moment for the Polish and Lithuanian Calvinists, to a far greater degree than any of the previous General Synods. For the first time, the three Churches agreed to publish one common hymnal for the three provinces, and, more importantly, one agenda with a unified liturgy. Its final provisions were signed by all the seniors and superintendents of all three Churches, the last revisions were made in October 1636, and the forms were sent to Gdańsk to the printing press of Andrzej Hünefeld (1581–​1666) for publication. After so many futile attempts, full liturgical unity for all three Reformed Churches was finally achieved. All three synods expressed their jubilation at the results, which were considerable. The Lesser Poland Reformed accepted it for public and household use in all the churches in all its districts during their September 1636 provincial synod in Bełżyce. The Lithuanian synod proclaimed that it received the results of the Włodawa agreements: “[W]‌ith due gratefulness, unanimi et communi consensuet applausu we approve, ratify, and promulgate.”157 The first new copies, called The Great Gdańsk Agenda, arrived in all three Churches in 1637.158 At this point, at least in Lithuania, factions opposed to the new unification surfaced, led by Piotr Kochlewski. He had been a Lithuanian delegate to the unification talks, and he had approved all the proceedings at Orla and Włodawa. It is impossible to know exactly why he did not like the 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda; perhaps having switched from one liturgical pattern to another (he was raised in the Brethren Church), he did not want to repeat the experience, or perhaps he genuinely liked the liturgy used in the Grand Duchy. With the aging Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł not present at the 1637 synod, Kochlewski gathered a group of ministers who began to obstruct the usage of the Great Gdańsk Agenda. Despite the efforts of the Lithuanian general superintendent Andrzej Dobrzański (d. 1640/​1641) to hold fast to the Włodawa’s canons, by 1638 Kochlewski managed to push the Lithuanian synod into a deadlock. The Lithuanians agreed to use some parts of the Great Gdańsk Agenda, but demanded that rest be revised.159 Naturally, the other two Churches were not amused. Tomasz Węgierski wrote a personal plea to the Lithuanian synod, asking them what the problem 1 55 156 157 158 159

AS 2011, 129–​133. Ibid., 129–​133; Tworek, “Starania,” 123–​128. AS 2011, 129–​130. app abc 1494. Tworek, “Starania,” 132.

The Liturgy

83

was: Were they not present at the Orla and Włodawa meetings? Did they not agree there to all that was said and approved? Why did they now contradict themselves? “We now see that the zeal which you now display, you did not use before, though present at the Orla and Włodawa convocations”160—​he added with some bitterness. He also suggested that delegates of the three Churches meet in Orla in 1639 and discuss what could be done, particularly because the 1637 Agenda had been been paid for, printed, and were being distributed in the Crown. The direct letter from Węgierski and the pleas for unity helped the Lithuanians come to their senses and, in 1639, they agreed to meet with the other two Churches and discuss their liturgical reservations. The Lesser Polish Calvinists and the Lithuanians prepared sizable delegations to meet, but two important events intervened: In October 1639, a Roman Catholic mob sacked the Vilnius church and in 1640 a royal judgment removed the Calvinist church outside city walls (1640). Devastated by this, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł died in the fall of 1640. The next Lithuanian synod did not meet till 1641; the delegates were in a much humbler mood and the 1639 canon on unity was re-​affirmed.161 In the meantime, the Reformed from Lesser Poland pressed for talks and, in 1643, their superintendent Tomasz Węgierski went to Vilnius to personally plead with the Lithuanian synod. Those assembled acquiesced; once again the city of Orla was chosen as the place of meeting—​a continuation and reaffirmation of the previous work. All three Churches prepared well for it. The Lesser Polish Church sent an impressive delegation of lay leaders with their superintendent Węgierski. They were told to listen to the Lithuanians quietly, stick to the Włodawa agreements in all things, and concede only after the Brethren had agreed. The Brethren sent all of their senior clerics to the meeting, adding Stanisław Kochlewski, the brother of Piotr Kochlewski, in order to use family influence on the opposition leader if all else failed. The Lithuanians delegation numbered 15 people, and was to press for a remake of the Great Gdańsk Agenda. They wanted to pit the Lesser Poles against the Brethren by suggesting that they could unify the liturgy with the former—​a political move to divide the delegations, for there was little chance the Lesser Polish Church would accept a reversal to Łaski’s Forma ac Ratio. The Lithuanian delegation sent to the talks was not as unified in their opposition to the 1637 Agenda as their instructions would have us believe. The Podlasie district senior was present, a district where Lesser Polish liturgical

1 60 Ibid.,133. 161 Ibid.,137; Petkunas, Holy, 181–​187.

84 

Chapter 4

customs held considerable sway. Furthermore, one of the Lithuanian seniors, Andrzej Musonius (d. 1662/​1663), hailed from the Brethren, and it is unlikely that he was fiercely opposed to the 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda.162 We should also bear in mind that the 1640 Vilnius tumult exposed to the Lithuanian Reformed that they were not as safe and powerful as they considered themselves to be. With Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł dead and his son Duke Janusz ii more involved with military affairs, they were in no position to alienate the other two Churches. All of this would explain the outcome of the 1644 convocation in Orla: The Lithuanians conceded on most points. While the other Churches agreed to minor adjustments to the Lord’s Supper liturgy, the substance of the 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda service remained unchanged. Most Lithuanian concerns were worked into the pattern of the 1637 Agenda. The revised Lithuanian version was to be published in 1644 as Akta Usługi, the term “Agenda” being reserved for the 1637 work. The Lithuanians took what was offered and its 1646 synod approved the Akta Usługi. The 1644 Akta Usługi so quickly replaced the earlier one that we only have one copy left of the 1621 liturgy. In the other two Churches, the 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda caused less friction than could have been expected. In the Brethren Church, the switch to the new liturgy went smoothly, most probably because the result was, at last, the Polish liturgy for which they had been working for nearly half a century. It was used for the ordination of acolytes and ministers during the 1638 Brethren synod and ministers were sternly ordered to use it “always.”163 How quickly it gained persuasive authority is clear from the 1644 synod in Leszno. Those gathered were asked if it was permissible to sing while sitting or standing, and whether the laying on of hands was permissible during a minister’s ordination. In both cases, the synod replied that that the instructions given in the 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda were to be followed, and even provided the page numbers where they could be found. That is not to say that there was immediate and absolute uniformity: The Brethren continued to use hosts instead of bread for communion until the end of the seventeenth century, and German-​ speaking congregations were exempt from the 1667 Agenda—​they were to follow the German-​speaking Leszno congregations. But in general, the liturgical change in the Brethren churches went very smoothly.164

162 He was serving in Lithuania from at least 1630 and ultimately became the superintendent of Vilnius district in 1652. 163 app abc 1502 fol. 120. 164 Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8, fol. 99–​100; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce, 119.

The Liturgy

85

In the liturgically astute Lublin district during the 1638 synod in Biłgoraj, the ministers were ordered to purchase copies of the Great Gdańsk Agenda and told, “introduce them [to the congregations], and their observations about these books the Brethren will give, God willing, at the next synod.”165 This was a wise way of preventing any complaints before the new liturgies were used. The next provincial synod did not deal with liturgical matters—​either it did not get to them, or there were no “observations” to discuss. No complaints were noted in the Chęciny or the Sandomir districts, either. During the 1640 provincial synod in Chmielnik, those ministers who had not yet begun using the new liturgies were threatened with sanctions.166 The Great Gdańsk Agenda was accepted smoothly in Lesser Poland’s Reformed Church. Much attention has been given to the fact that, initially, the Lithuanian Reformed Church did not fully accept the 1637 Agenda and was very hesitant to accept the Gdańsk Bible as well. This is put forward as an alleged failure of the Włodawa agreements and even a sign of Protestant “disintegration.”167 That is exactly the opposite of what actually happened. In fact, during their 1635 synod, the Lithuanian Church fully accepted the Włodawa’s conclusions. All three Reformed Churches thus achieved a remarkable unity in liturgy, with only minor differences in the working of some communion prayers. The 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda remained in use in all three Churches for a very long time: in the Brethren until its dissolution in the Prussian Union Church in 1817, in the Lithuanian Church until its extinction in 1945 (in Polish-​speaking congregations, the Lithuanian branch still uses the liturgy to this day), and in the Reformed Church in Poland effectively until the end of the nineteenth century.168 1 65 boz 1183, fol. 33–​34. 166 Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 121, 132. 167 Tworek, “Starania,” 138. 168 Petkunas, Holy, 63–​ 69. In the Polish Reformed Church (Kościół Ewangelicko-​ Reformowany w RP) as of 2019 it is still the official liturgy though it is hardly ever used.

­c hapter 5

Church Discipline In February 1606, the unhappy marriage of the nobleman Przecław Bobrownicki (d. 1630)  and Anna Zakrzewska (d. c.  1623)  was brought to the attention of the Chęciny (Cracow) district synod in Lesser Poland. The case must have been well known to his large home congregation of Włoszczowa, where the synod sat, and those gathered described it as “a cause of great scandal.”1 Those assembled dispatched the district’s elders to appeal to his “common sense,” and failing that, to bring the matter to the attention of the next synod. Thus began the 19-​year odyssey of a man, who dismissed his wife to live with a mistress, and the Lesser Poland Reformed Calvinist discipline, which tried to reconcile the spouses and bring the adulterer back into the fold. Reformed Church discipline has not, thus far, received the attention it is due in Polish historiography or been put in its proper theological context.2 Most often, it is discussed in political context of the futile attempt at a Church union between the Brethren and the Lesser Poland Reformed in the 1550s. Its application in the seventeenth century has, in turn, been viewed as a sign of Calvinism’s demise and sectarianism in the Commonwealth.3 In this chapter, I  will briefly sketch the history of the practice of church discipline, its theological purpose, and procedure in the three Reformed Churches in the Commonwealth. While by no means exhaustive (I will not write about the practice in Gdańsk or Toruń), I am hoping to show that the Commonwealth’s Calvinists were very well aware of the theological underpinnings of Calvinist Church discipline. The means by which they exercised church discipline shows a remarkable similarity to the patterns of other Reformed Churches in Europe.

1 asr iii, 276. 2 It has only been analyzed linguistically: I. M. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku na tle terminologii katolickiej (Warszawa:  2004); I.  Rucka, “ ‘O wyklęciu albo wyłączeniu’—​słownictwo związane z karą ekskomuniki w kościołach reformowanych w drugiej połowie XVI i początku XVII wieku,” Slavia Occidentalis 53 (1996): 69–​ 86. 3 M. Wajsblum, Ex regestro arianismi. Szkice z dziejów upadku protestantyzmu w Małopolsce (Kraków: 1937–​1948), 6–​10.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_006

Church Discipline

5.1

87

Theological Background of Reformed Church Discipline before 1634

Of the three Reformed Churches, initially only the Czech Brethren practiced church discipline. Łukasz Górka (1533–​1573), the haughty Greater Poland magnate, discovered how serious they were about it after he took part in the killing of his wife’s first husband, Duke Dymitr Sanguszko, in 1554.4 Górka was ordered to repent for his involvement in the crime, but instead chose to leave the Brethren and join the Lutherans, who were more willing to accommodate his magnate ways.5 According to the traditions brought from the Kingdom of Bohemia, church discipline for the Brethren up until the mid-​seventeenth century involved a meeting with the pastor about one’s sins called “a conversation about the conscience” (rozmowa około sumienia). It normally took place on the day the Lord’s Supper was celebrated and involved both public and private sins. Until the 1600s it had no element of lay participation. The procedure had clear parallels with the old Roman Catholic sacrament of confession. The Lesser Poland Reformed, however, greeted the concept of church discipline with restraint. Major supporters of the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland, the Zborowski family, were also involved in the murder of Duke Sanguszko, but Marcin Zborowski (d. 1565), palatine of Kalisz, did not fear Górka’s censure from his minister, Stanisław Sarnicki. During their December 1556 meeting, the Brethren minister Izrael accused his Lesser Poland colleagues of not vetting people properly before admitting them to communion, clearly alluding to the killing. Not surprisingly, Sarnicki responded with barely hidden disdain: “Who might know another’s heart? I am not God to know it. And if were not to serve [Communion] but only to those who this agreement [Koźminek Union] made, than there would be only one [minister] needed in this region of Kraków, and we would all not be needed.”6 Lack of chemistry between the two clerics apart, Sarnicki’s answer shows that at the very least, during the early formation of the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland, church discipline was not seen as something necessary or desirable, at least not by all.7 However, change was coming quickly. Some of the ministers and elders recognized the level of importance that their Reformed brethren in the west ascribed to church discipline.8 During the July 1557 meeting of the ministers 4 W. Dworzaczek, Łukasz Górka (ok.1533–​1573), PSB, vol. 8 (1960), 412–​414. 5 Bidlo, Jednota, vol. 2, 17–​30. 6 asr i, 148; M. Ujma, “Wzorce osobowe synów kasztelana krakowskiego Marcina Zborowskiego (Z problematyki obyczajowości szlacheckiej w XVI wieku),” KLIO 18 (2011): 54–​60. 7 asr i, 124–​125. 8 Benedict, Christ’s, 460–​489 and extensive bibliography 637–​638.

88 

Chapter 5

in Pińczów, those gathered decided that barring someone from receiving holy communion would follow the procedure used in Geneva.9 Quite possibly because not all were happy with this sudden theological reversal, the seniors gathered in Pińczow in October of the same year to outlined the details: Any admonition would be made first in private; in the case of a second instance, witnesses would be brought and the matter judged with charity. This nascent church discipline was supplemented by the September 1558 synod in Wodzisław. A quasi-​third instance was then added: any dissent between the members could be settled and mediated by general synods.10 The arrival of Jan Łaski propelled the understating of church discipline in a new direction. As the superintendent of the Stranger’s church in London, and earlier in Frisia, he made church discipline one of the three marks of a true church.11 That entailed bringing lay elders into its administration and the election of lay elders in Lesser Poland’s Church thus followed. Indeed, during the September 1557 synod in Wodzisław, when Łaski was present, lay elders—​in Lesser Poland called “seniors”—​were chosen from among the nobles, as were lay deacons. During the June 1559 synod in Wodzisław, when the church structure was rearranged, the ministers called for the election of lay seniors in each church district, in a ratio of two lay members to one clerical.12 This is very important, as some have seen the calling of “seniores equestris ordinis” as Łaski’s intention to hand over the power in the new church to his noble relatives and peers. This is a simplistic reading. Łaski had few qualms about sharing the power in the church with both plebeian church ministers and noble laymen, some of them his kin. But this ignores the fact that lay noblemen were the only group that had political rights in the realm and that often, in rural congregations, they were the only ones who could exercise church discipline and enforce it. In 1560, they were the only possible candidates for eldership in the church, and the only ones who could effectively function as such. For Łaski, eldership was an issue for theology, not class.13 That fact the new Lesser Poland church was not opposed to having lay non-​noble elders is shown by the list of the first known Cracow “seniors both equestris et civilis ordinis,” three were noblemen and eight were burghers.14 9 asr i, 209. 10 Ibid., 239, 268–​269. 11 Springer, Restoring, 95–​110. 12 asr i, 269, 273–​274, 299, 306. 13 Kowalska-​Kossobudzka, “Wpływ Jana Łaskiego,” 19–​20. 14 Kronika Zboru, 65.

Church Discipline

89

This is clear in the description of seniors’ duties adopted by the 1560 General Synod in Książ. In an extended list of requirements, the status of nobleman was not listed. Their main function was to develop piety, aid the ministers in running the church, and exercise church discipline. That same synod provided for an extended (and slightly convoluted) church disciplinary procedure, which a contemporary aptly described as “new discipline” in a handwritten note on the side of the synod’s proceedings manuscript.15 It has many parallels with Łaski’s Forma ac ratio procedure although it was adopted after he died, with some adjustments made for Lesser Poland’s reality. First, the lay seniors were to rebuke the sinner privately. Second offenses required bringing in two “staid brothers” and admonishing the sinner again. If that failed, they were to refer the case to the minister, who was to again attempt private admonition. If that failed, the case was to be referred to the whole congregation, naming the sin only and not the offender’s name. If this anonymous admonition by the congregation failed, the case was to be referred to the minister and the seniors this time for a public admonition by the congregation. If this failed, the minister and the lay seniors would pronounce the guilty barred from the Lord’s Supper and referred to a general synod for further instructions.16 This long and arduous procedure shows how much hope was placed in idea that the wayward would repent before any excommunication was pronounced. Ironically, the role played by the laity when exercising church discipline now separated Lesser Poland from the Brethren, which at that point was still a clergy-​dominated episcopal church where all discipline was handled privately by the clergy alone. Both bodies found common ground regarding the theological importance of church discipline as a way of controlling access to the Lord’s Supper. During the June 1561 meeting in Bużenin, the Brethren and Lesser Polish Reformed agreed that public sinners should be admonished three times before being barred from communion. However, if anyone committed the crimes of killing, drunkenness, adultery, or idolatry shortly before the sacrament was celebrated and there was no time for three warnings, he was to be barred from it nonetheless, and the proper procedure would then follow.17 Church discipline was reaffirmed one more time during the 1566 General Synod in Wodzisław.18 We do not know how rigorously church discipline was actually enforced in Lesser Poland at the time, as the Church split due to the Unitarian schism. 15 asr ii, 47. 16 Ibid., 46–​48. 17 Ibid., 109. 18 asr iii, 203.

90 

Chapter 5

Synods were not held for some time, and theological differences divided congregations and families; church discipline disappears from the synodical records in Lesser Poland. Tellingly, at that very same time, the separate Kujawy Calvinists, who until then had viewed discipline as a peculiarity of the Brethren, adopted it for their church. The suddenness of this reversal can be explained by their fear of Unitarianism spreading into their Church. Thus, in the September 18, 1565 Union of Liszków with the Czech Brethren, they promised to implement it in their congregations: “It was decided about discipline or church censure, that he [Andrzej from Przasnysz, leader of the Kujavia Calvinists] would introduce it, and in God’s church with zeal execute, punishing sinners and excluding the unworthy from the sacrament, and some from church fellowship [excommunication], and to receive those who repent. This is all according to the teaching of God’s Word and based on the example of the Brethren.”19 Church discipline reappears in the records a decade later, not surprisingly when the Lesser Poland Reformed began to pull themselves together as a Trinitarian Protestant Church, as evidenced by the Sandomir Consensus and the Sandomir Confession. The 1573 General Synod in Cracow reaffirmed that there were to be “seniors of the equestrian order or lay [order]” in a 2:1 ratio to ministers. These lay seniors were to be inaugurated by district superintendents during local synods. Their first listed duties were to aid the ministers in running congregations, to suspend wayward ministers if their teaching was unsound, and to make sure that “all wayward brethren were punished according to the degrees of church discipline.”20 The synod reaffirmed that church discipline was extended to all, regardless of their social status. It is interesting to note that whereas Łaski’s deacons had fallen into disuse, the office of elders and church discipline were retained, or, rather, revived.21 From 1573 onwards we see a trend: church discipline began to trickle down to church districts and individual congregations, and it was increasingly seen as a mark of a healthy Reformed Church. As we have seen in Chapter 3, this process paralleled the Lesser Reformed moving from a de facto congregational or presbygationist church polity to a firmer Presbyterian polity. The slow but steady practice of church discipline brought the Lesser Poland (and probably the Lithuanian) Reformed from the brink of total disaster and theological chaos back to a healthy, living, Reformed Church.

19 asr ii, 196. 20 asr iii, 8–​9. 21 Ibid., 6.

Church Discipline

91

In 1575, following the destruction and rebuilding of the Bróg Church in Cracow, a provincial synod was held in the capital, which gave very specific instructions to that congregation. It dealt with matters of poor relief, paying for the minister, the order and place of the services in Polish and in German, etc. But it also ordered the faithful to show up regularly for worship with their hymnbooks, and to participate in the Lord’s Supper when it was celebrated, unless they felt they could not, in which case such a person must talk to the elders. Immediately after that follows the provision: “All should attend to disciplinam, and not suffer between themselves the debauched and profligate, especially those who establish among themselves sects or act against the minister or elders; but these should be at the synod shown publicly and given to punishment and excommunication.”22 Private celebrations of holy communion were forbidden unless specifically allowed by the seniors—​to thwart attempts of partaking in the sacrament while bypassing church discipline. The importance of church discipline was stressed by the provincial synods every decade after that: 1578, 1583, 1598.23 In 1603 the provincial synod in Łańcut ordered the seniors of the Sandomir, Ruthenia, and Chęciny districts “for some reasons and the good of God’s Church”24 to write about the procedure in more depth. These reasons behind the endeavor are not known but it does point to continued interest in the matter. These repeated synodic calls began to be noticed in the practice of local district synods. The extant acts of the Lublin district show that from 1581 each session of the Lublin district began first with “the exercise of discipline” (odprawowanie dyscypliny), to be followed by the Lord’s Supper on the next day.25 In the Chęciny (Cracow) district, the practice took a little longer to take root. In 1595, those gathered in Secemin stated: “All accepted the discipline and promised to be obedient to it, […] voluntarily wishing to take it one from another, that is the patrons from ministers, and ministers from patrons.”26 Copies of the disciplinary procedure were sent to all the congregations, and the faithful were urged to suggest any additional sins that should qualify for it. Only during the 1606 synod in Secemin do we hear of “the exercise of discipline” during Chęciny district’s synod.27 The Chęciny district records are not as detailed as

22 23 24 25

Kronika Zboru, 73. asr iii, 40, 82–​83, 197. asr iii, 254. Ibid., 45, 103, 179, 207, 212, 201, 223, 234, 249, 264, 272, 280, 293, 296, 304, 314, 325, 350, 359, 370, 385, 408, 415, 426, 436, 447, 538. 26 Ibid., 110. 27 Ibid., 278.

92 

Chapter 5

the Lublin ones, but issues of Church discipline were always on the agenda, sometimes “consuming no small amount of time,”28 and there is reason to believe they paralleled the Lublin pattern.29 The minutes of the district synods of Sandomir (extant from 1617) are even terser, but again matters of Church discipline dominate for that period.30 The first time the ministers held a “private session” that is explicitly mentioned in the records was in 1631, but it is very probable that such sessions occurred earlier.31 Each of the district synods in Chęciny, Sandomir, and Lublin the combining of the “exercise of discipline” and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper a bit differently. In the Chęciny district, that seems to have been the case from 1599 until 1606. After that, with one exception in 1610, the practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper during district synods appears to have ceased.32 The Sandomir district never had that practice at all. This conclusion is based on two arguments: first, this practice would have been explicitly mentioned in the records of the two districts, as it was in Chęciny until 1606. Secondly, unlike the Lublin district synods, which took from two to three days, the Chęciny and Sandomir district synods normally took one day.33 The custom of celebrating the Lord’s Supper during district synod was probably local to Lublin, and was explicitly mentioned for the last time in 1610. It may have continued after that date but it is unlikely.34 Further evidence that effective church discipline was seen as a mark of a true church comes from an unusual source:  the polemic exchange between Andrzej Chrząstowski, a Calvinist nobleman turned Unitarian, and his adversary, Jakub Zaborowski (d. 1621), pastor in the Lublin district. In 1618, Chrząstowski published a now-​lost tract titled “A conversation of an evangelical nobleman with an evangelical minister, together with a letter to evangelical lords by Andrzej Chrząstowski, once a courtier, now a gentleman.” On behalf of the Reformed Church, Zaborowski replied in 1619 with a title of equal length: “To the conversation of an evangelical nobleman with an evangelical minister, and 28 Ibid., 294. 29 Ibid. 282, 283, 287, 291, 305. 30 Ibid., 412, 419, 441, 488. 31 Ibid., 564. 32 These were:  Secemin 1599, 1600, Włoszczowa 1601, Chmilenik 1603, Oksa 1604 and 1605, Włoszczowa 1606 and 1610. Ibid., 200, 211, 219, 253, 267, 273, 277, 302. 33 For the period of 1617–​1631 the Chęciny district synods lasted for two days only in 1619 and 1621—​Ibid., 410–​411, 428–​431. The Sandomir district’s synods lasted two days nine times: 1619, 1620, 1622, 1623, 1625, 1627, 1629, 1630, 1631—​Ibid., 412, 419, 44, 451–​ 452, 471–​472, 495–​497, 527–​528, 546–​547, 564–​567. 34 Ibid., 304.

Church Discipline

93

a letter to evangelical lords published by His Lordship Andrzej Chrząstowski, a modest and true answer. Written and made public by the minister brethren of the Holy Gospel of the Lublin District. Year of the Lord 1619. Printed by Augustyn Ferber.”35 Zaborowski quickly published an anonymous (and therefore richer in scandalous gossip and thinner on theology) parody of Chrząstowski’s Conversation aimed at a wider audience.36 The official response, like the title’s length, was anything but modest, and both polemists took pleasure in personal jabs. The text has been analyzed for its discussion of the Trinity and the question of serfs, but so far, its comments regarding church discipline have not been explored. One of the arguments Chrząstowski makes is that strict church discipline is kept by Unitarians, in contrast to the lax use of discipline by the Reformed. He wished “that holy discipline be introduced both on ministers and the auditors [church members].”37 Zaborowski replied that this was the case, and then added (somewhat weakening his point), “If it were needed to be executed on someone it should have been on your lordship: 1) because your lordship did not give your children to be baptized, though asked. 2) that your lordship gave your sons to the Raków school, breaking canon of the Toruń Synod […] 3) that you nearly severed the Lublin congregation [in half].”38 Rejecting the idea of Unitarians as living saints, or any possibility of union between the two Churches, Zaborowski quipped that this will happen “when heaven unites with hell, and stags graze on clouds.”39 Chrząstowski’s more detailed arguments against the Reformed and their church discipline—​all rebutted by Zaborowski—​are somewhat self-​ contradictory. Chrząstowski first asks why church discipline is needed at all—​ a church full of godly people should be free of it. He then asks why church discipline on ministers is executed by ministers only, finally to again accuse the Reformed of lax church discipline for the ministers, and to claim that due to their lax church discipline, any converts from Unitarianism are morally suspicious. The details and coherence of his arguments aside, the polemic shows that by 1618, the practice of church discipline was seen both by the Reformed and Unitarians as a crucial aspect of a church’s functioning.40

35

Cztery Broszury Polemiczne z początku XVII wieku, ed. H. Górska, L. Szczucki, K. Wilczewska (Warszawa: 1958), 11–​12. 36 Ibid., 95–​105. 37 Ibid., 55. 38 Ibid., 55–​56. 39 Ibid., 56. 40 Ibid., 58–​59, 60, 70, 77.

94 

Chapter 5

The role of church discipline increased as time went on. This is seen clearly in the conclusions of the 1631 provincial synod in Gliniany, which ordered that the next provincial synod was to create a uniform procedure of excommunication based on the procedures and verdicts of all the church districts.41 The Lesser Poland Reformed saw church discipline as an effective way of “Calvinizing” other Protestants attending their churches. This is illustrated by the agreement signed by the elders of the Cracow Reformed and Lutheran congregations in 1615 and affirmed later by provincial synods in 1616 and 1636. According to its terms, Lutherans living in Cracow were allowed to have their own preacher and elders, and to use the Reformed church buildings in the surrounding villages for their worship. But there were important caveats involved: the Lutherans were not allowed to introduce any innovations or church paraments in the buildings. While regular Lutheran members were allowed to kneel during prayers, they were explicitly forbidden to receive communion kneeling. They were to receive it standing, in the Reformed fashion, and the Lutheran minister and elders were to “take out of the heads of those who would in it have delight”42 Additionally, Lutheran communion services were to be preceded with two special preparatory services, similar to the Reformed fashion. On the day before, the Lutheran minister was to hold “privatum examen or confessionem of his hearers,”43 not unlike the Calvinist church discipline preceding the sacrament. These provisions, while allowing the Lutherans freedom of worship, would in time turn them into Calvinists. The agreement was ratified by the Oksa provincial synod in 1636 with one important change: regular Lutheran worshippers were now allowed to receive communion kneeling, but the minister and elders were to partake standing, and work to eradicate the tradition of kneeling. The church discipline provision was left intact.44 5.2

The Practice of Reformed Church Discipline before 1634

According to Łaski, church discipline was meant to happen first and foremost on the congregational level. The reality of Lesser Poland was more complicated. Where the congregations were numerous enough (Baranów Sandomierski, Góry, Włoszczowa) to have their own consistories, admonition and contrition were done on the congregational level. Thus, in 1632 Adam Korzeński who was 41 asr iii, 571. 42 Kronika Zboru, 111. 43 Ibid., 111. 44 Ibid., 108–​114.

Church Discipline

95

excommunicated by the congregation in Góry in 1631, repented, in front of that congregation for an otherwise unspecified sin. That same synod ordered that the reconciliation between the nobleman Seweryn Bonar and some of his fellow congregation members in Góry was to happen there as well. In 1633 the Baranów Sandomierski congregation excommunicated three burgher members “for known reasons,” which were probably recorded in the now-​lost book of that congregation. As the records of the Cracow congregation show, these consistories were not full-​time administrative bodies, and met before each communion service to examine potential communicants.45 Where congregations were too small to have their own consistories or were totally dependent on the noble patron who was the transgressor, the Lesser Poland Church district synods functioned like a consistory.46 Thus, the 1599 Lublin district synod “healed” two “wounds” in two congregations and decided to punish an unnamed one in Kock with “disciplina severa.”47 It was the Oksa district synod of 1632, rather than the small Szczepanowice congregation located on his estate, that threatened Benedykt Chrząstowski with excommunication for his “very unseemly” marital living. Similarly, when conflict between two prominent noble members disrupted the congregation, the district synods would step in. In the Sandomir district, church visitations by both lay and clerical district seniors were used as occasions to exercise church discipline. When cases were serious and involved weighty patrons, the district and provincial synods served as courts of first and second instance—​much like a presbytery or a classis. This was the case when the Calvinist peasants from Kozy complained about their treatment by the estate’s tenant, and when the serfs in Wojcza complained about their landlord, Andrzej Firlej (d. 1660).48 The gravitas of the synod, especially its noble members, was needed in cases where those subject to church discipline did not receive the news well. In 1631 the Chęciny district synod “cut out from within us” the nobleman Adam Korzeński after he “not only ungratefully received [the threat of excommunication] from God’s servants, but did not hold back and threatened them with arms.”49 45 46

47 48 49

asr iii, 575; Dep. Wil. 641, fol. 397–​398. K. Bem, “Ustroje kościołów ewangelicko-​reformowanych w Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów na przełomie XVI i XVII wieku,” OiRwP 57 (2013):  145; idem, “O znakach, ścięgnach i ustrojach kościelnych oraz o różnicach prawdziwych i mniemanych—​w odpowiedzi Maciejowi Ptaszyńskiemu,” OiRwP 59 (2015): 252; M. Ptaszyński, “O znakach kościoła i ich znaczeniu. Polemika z Kazimierzem Bemem,” OiRwP 58 (2014): 153–​175. asr iii, 201–​202. Ibid., 574, 557–​558, 562–​564, 574; Dep. Wil. 641, fol. 398, 422. asr iii, 563.

96 

Chapter 5

District, and in some cases provincial, synods served as courts of appeal in disciplinary cases—​again, much like classis or presbyteries. In 1627, the Chęciny district excommunicated Maciej Drohojowski, who seduced Jadwiga Witrelin, a minister’s daughter, and lived with her out of wedlock. The congregation in Góry annulled the excommunication in 1629 after he expressed remorse. The district synod in Góry in the same year approved that decision, but feeling the terms imposed by the congregation might have been too lenient, added “that a public prayer be said for his lordship, for the greater consolation and resting of conscience … for the example of others, so they would be afraid to sin.”50 In the Baranów Sandomierski, a visitation by the Sandomir seniors simply confirmed the penalties imposed by the elders of that congregation.51 The procedure was not set in stone, and there was some flexibility. In 1633 it was the provincial synod in Oksa, rather than the congregation in Góry or the district synod of Chęciny, that saw Anna Glińska “shed honest tears” for allowing her niece to marry a Unitarian in her manor. Those gathered lifted the penalty of excommunication imposed by the Góry congregation.52 Appearing at the provincial synod rather than the home congregation was not, as it might seem, an easy way out. In 1645 Andrew Hunter, who had been living in an unnamed “certain sin” for years, and had a year earlier been admonished by three elders of the Cracow congregation but to avail, was threatened one last time. If he failed to repent, he would be summoned before the provincial synod. Since, the synodical records are silent on the matter he must have repented.53 The same threat was effective in 1648 with Jakub Czamer, another Scot from Cracow, who skipped Sunday services and abstained from the Lord’s Supper. He did penance and took communion in the Wielkanoc church in 1650.54 The Lublin district began the practice of handling church discipline matters relating to ministers initially by only the ministers themselves. This practice was codified in 1598.55 Its origins were, if we are to believe Jakub Zaborowski, practical rather than theological: in the early years the lay seniors were often away on political business, did not show up, or were late for the proceedings. Also, some of the lay elders explicitly asked not to have to deal with the details

50 51 52 53 54 55

Ibid., 526. The synod may have been on to something:  in 1634 Drohojowski helped a friend seduce, secretly marry, and elope with a novice nun. W. Łoziński, Prawem i lewem. Obyczaje na Czerwonej Rusi w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku (Warszawa: 2005), 229–​230. Dep. Wil. 641, fol. 397–​398. Ibid., fol. 104. Księga Wtóra, fol. 178–​179; Kowalski, Great, 164–​165 doubts that Hunter ever repented. Księga Wtóra, fol. 182. asr iii, 196.

Church Discipline

97

of ministers’ infractions so as not to be scandalized. The practice of ministers handling their own cases was controversial:  in 1615, the Chęciny district in Oksa decided to study the matter in depth at the provincial synod. The other districts did not adopt the Lublin’s practice until 1631.56 From 1631, the practice spread to provincial synods and continued after the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation. When church discipline was applied to lay members, however, lay seniors were always present.57 While the list of sins that in theory could trigger church discipline was public and well known, both churches and districts could be very discreet in individual cases. This was especially visible in delicate cases relating to adultery and marital life. In 1625, when the affair between Maciej Drohojowski and Jadwiga Witrelin began (or became public), the district synod noted enigmatically that “a letter be sent to Lord Drohojowski.”58 A year later, the record was a little more revealing, but remained discreet enough: In canon 6, the minister Witrelin was ordered to bring his daughter home, with no mention of why and from where. The urgency of the plea was such that the synod offered to pay for his travel. The following canon mentioned that another letter was sent to Drohojowski and his pastor. To the untrained eye, the two cases appeared unrelated. The same discretion was kept during the July 1627 district synod, and not until the September 1627 were the cases connected, when the couple living in sin was finally excommunicated.59 The 1632 Chęciny district synod in Oksa recorded briefly that it “reconciled divided spouses and cancelled excommunication,” with no more details given.60 In 1644, the elders of the Cracow congregation threatened the Scot Andrew Hunter with excommunication—​he had already been suspended from “Sacra Communia for the particular sin in which he lies now with no repentance.”61 The sin was not named. The threat had to be repeated a year later. Perhaps he is the same anonymous person who was to be visited by three Scotsmen from the congregation in 1643 as “a certain person, in a certain sin lying, be admonished.”62 Other sins were named explicitly, especially if the offendor was well known, had relapsed, or had failed to respond to repeated admonitions. And so, in 56 57

Ibid., 363, 564. Cztery Broszury, 60. It showed remarkable similarities to procedures set up for clergy in 1539 in Basel see A.N. Burnett, Teaching the Reformation. Ministers and Their Message in Basel 1529–​1629 (Oxford: 2006), 29–​35, 74. 58 asr iii, 469. 59 asr iii, 490, 498, 500. 60 Ibid., 575. 61 Księga Wtóra, fol. 178–​179. 62 Ibid., fol. 173.

98 

Chapter 5

1610, Andrzej Oleśnicki was summoned by the district synod of Włoszczowa for his repeated marital infidelities. There, he showed contrition, hoping for a lenient sentence. The synod was “not eager to harshness,”63 but, given his past, remained a little skeptical of his contrition. It therefore ordered him to do public penance in the Oksa church at the upcoming service on Good Friday. He did not and was eventually excommunicated later that year. Oleśnicki repented, and in 1611, the synod noted with satisfaction that he did public penance in front of the whole congregation and was absolved according to Łaski’s Forma.64 In 1610, the nobleman Maciej Rzeszowski and his wife were ordered to publically apologize in front of the whole congregation for beating and locking up their minister’s daughter.65 In 1606, the Chęciny district synod, gathered in Secemin, advised the minister in Góry on how to deal with the young Gosławski noblemen who had killed their servant. The synod ruled that they were to make “publicam poenitentiam in the church” before they could be admitted to the Lord’s Supper again. They were also to set aside an amount of money as compensation. If no family member of the servant claimed it within three years, the money was to go to that congregation’s almshouse.66 In 1629, the young Paweł Dunin-​Karwicki killed his one of his female serfs. The role of his mother, Krystyna Karwicka, in the incident is not clear, but her actions caused a scandal—​perhaps she enticed him or tried to cover it up. Because the Sieczków congregation was not large and depended on that very family for its existence, the Sandomir district acted as a consistory. During its August session, the district elders were sent to “seriously talk” and “rebuke” the young man “ratione perpetrati homicidii.”67 For the disciplining of his mother, the synod acted to “heal the conscience of Lady Karwicka and abolish the scandal of many, and for the calming of a grieved God’s church for such a lamentable case in her ladyship’s household.” They ordered that the dead woman’s husband and children be released from serfdom and that Karwicka donate generously to the Czech refugees and publically do penance “in the presence of everyone [the whole congregation] and subjects [her serfs].”68 The synod also threatened that if she did not do the prescribed penance, her case would be dealt with by the provincial synod in Oksa. Karwicka complied and her case was closed. Her son attempted to avoid the censure, but the district 63 asr iii, 302. 64 Ibid., 312–​313, 319. 65 Ibid., 303, 305. 66 Ibid., 278. 67 Ibid., 527. 68 Ibid., 527.

Church Discipline

99

was insistent and ultimately he made a public apology after being spoken to by older Reformed nobles and elders.69 As late as in 1699, in the congregation in Piaski Luterskie, one of its patrons, Adam Suchodolski (d. 1714), made public penance for the crime of homicide “in facie totius Eclesia [sic] (…) Dominica post Nativitatis Christi.” The date of the public penance is important: it would allow him to partake of the Lord’s Supper on Epiphany Sunday.70 The penalties imposed by the congregations were not meant to be punitive, but rather restorative. During the 1618–​1619 exchanges between the Unitarian Chrząstowski and Calvinist Zaborowski, the latter made that point very clear. Countering Chrząstowski’s claim that the punishments handed down by the Calvinists were too lax, Zaborowski gave as an example the case of the minister Biskupski from the previous synod. For his behavior, the contentious cleric was ordered to apologize publically to his entire congregation in Jedlińsk (Chapter 6). Zaborowski then added: “What kind of discipline is Your Lordship looking for? To curse and take the [sinner’s] possessions for the church? (…) Or some other with no hope for [being] received back and mercy? Such we leave to the novatians and their great-​grandsons the Socinians. We know that the Savior tells us to dig around an unfruitful tree (…). Not only pours in such wounds stinging vine, but also adds a little of soothing oil.”71 When the 1611 Chęciny district synod in Secemin excommunicated the nobleman Bobrownicki, the decision must have weighed heavily on them, for they offered a public prayer for him the following day.72 A contemporary Polish historian is correct when he says that the Calvinist faithful had “trust in the harshness and fairness of the synod’s findings.”73 For Łaski, as well as the other Reformers, the purpose of Church discipline was to bring sinners to repentance and prevent the corruption of the flock’s purity, and thus to create a reconciled, visible community of believers. Therefore, its exercise was tied to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. According to Łaski’s Forma, people were to present themselves to the consistory a day before the celebration of the sacrament so that they could do penance and the congregation could receive them back in time to partake. Forma even had a special liturgy for that service.74 This is very evident in the records of the congregation

69 Ibid., 546. 70 S. Konarski, Szlachta Kalwińska w Polsce (Warszawa: 1936), 287. 71 Cztery Broszury, 70. 72 asr iii, 312–​313. 73 M. Ptaszyński, “O ustroju kościoła. Uwagi na marginesie edycji Akt synodów prowincjonalnych Jednoty Litewskiej 1626–​1627,” OiRwP 56 (2012): 213. 74 Benedict, Christ’s, 462, 637–​638; Springer, Restoring, 95–​110.

100 

Chapter 5

in Parcice from 1631, which specifically set aside two services before communion celebrations where the faithful were to be reconciled, the sinners called to repentance “so that God’s glory (…) would not be defiled.”75 These services had a complicated history in the two Calvinist Churches. In the Grand Duchy, the synod’s records contain no explicit mention of such services. There is some later anecdotal evidence that it may have happened on the Friday, before the Sunday sacrament. The Lesser Poland records are a little more revealing, but still too sparse to inspire sweeping statements. During the September 1616 visitation of the Cracow congregation worshipping in Aleksandrowice, the district visitors noted, “there was until these time a great negligence of early congregations [services] of the Lord ante Communionem.” It ordered those partaking to show up “on Saturday, on time, so that with fasting, prayers and listening to redeeming teachings belonging to this sacred act, they could participate.”76 The Cracow Lutherans, under the terms of the union, were also ordered to have a preparatory church-​discipline service on the day before their sacramental celebration.77 Almost a decade later, the 1624 Chęciny district gathered in Włoszczowa named as one of its points for the provincial synod: “Inquire if congregational sessions, ante usum Cenae Domini were properly celebrated in congregations, and with them effective discipline was maintained servatis servandis.”78 The provincial synod in Gliniany reiterated that: “The order prescribed in the Agenda congregations are to follow in everything, especially [in the case of] before the service of the Lord’s Supper.”79 Despite this, the separate long and arduous preparatory liturgy before the Lord’s Supper was slowly abandoned. This is clear from the 1654 Chęciny synod in Oksa, which was scandalized to hear of such congregations. That year’s provincial synod in Bełżcye ordered “the services to resume” but once again, this fell on death ears.80 From the few records we do have, it appears that church discipline was generally exercised at most, two weeks before the communion service and, sometimes, on the same day as the communion service. In 1631, the congregation in Parcice (technically a Brethren one, but with strong ties to Lesser Poland) assigned two sessions: the first two weeks before, and the second the day before communion, for such services.81 In 1637, the Cracow congregation celebrated 75 app abc 2445, fol. 3. 76 asr iii, 379. 77 Kronika Zboru, 112; asr iii, 379. 78 Ibid., 454. 79 Ibid., 462–​463. 80 buw ser 592, fol. 112, 114. 81 app abc 2445, fol. 3.

Church Discipline

101

the sacrament on November 8 in Łuczanowice; the elders’ session for that service was held on November 5. Later the same year, communion was celebrated on the fourth Sunday in Advent; the elders’ session was held on that same day, presumably early in the morning. The following year, when communion services were held on Palm Sunday in Łuczanowice and on Easter in Wielkanoc, the elders’ session was again held on the same day. Naturally, in these cases, the two long, separate services Łaski had prescribed could not be held in addition to the two regular worship services, which included two sermons, and a communion liturgy. Tellingly, all these records are found under the heading “Sessions before holy communion.”82 In other places, the timing differed. The 1606 penance of the Gosławski brothers would have allowed them to partake of the Lord’s Supper on Pentecost. Andrzej Oleśnicki was to do penance after the sermon during the service on Good Friday in 1610, which would have allowed him to participate in the Easter communion. In 1631, the visitation of the Sandomir District occurred around Palm Sunday (April 13): on April 11 in Malice, and on April 13 in Ożarów. In the latter church, the seniors reconciled three important congregation members. All of this was done just in time for the men to participate in the Lord’s Supper on Easter.83 We have fewer cases outlining how church discipline functioned in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for the period before the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation. The 1614 provincial synod ordered that “All complains and personal matters, vigorre the present synod, are not to be brought publice to the Synod, but are given over to a smaller consistorium.”84 This body, later called “synederium,” was to meet at 5:00 AM, and its final decisions were to be relayed to the plenary session of the synod. It was composed of an equal number of lay and ordained delegates and was to hear appeals from church discipline cases handled by the local congregations and the district synods. The early morning hour may have been chosen to ensure the discretion of the proceedings. The synederium was reaffirmed during the 1627 synod, where it was referred to as “minors synederii” and its competences and functioning slightly altered.85 According to canon 2, the body was to be elected from all estates immediately after the election of the lay president of the synod. The lay president was responsible for chairing this body (or could delegate it to his clerical vice-​president) from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM when the synod was not in plenary 82 83 84 85

Księga Wtóra, fol. 46, 160–​162. asr iii, 278, 302, 557. AS 1915, 19. AS 2011, 16–​17.

102 

Chapter 5

session. The body’s purpose was to adjudicate cases, but its decisions were not final, inasmuch as they were to be presented to the full synod for approval. The synederium functioned in the Lithuanian Reformed church until 1724, when it was replaced with three ecclesiastical church courts in Kiejdany, Słuck, and Kojdanów.86 The Lithuanian Church reached a better functioning and more uniform Presbyterian structure sooner, and thus, church discipline cases were handled according on three levels: the congregation first, followed by the district synod, and ending with the synederium. We therefore have fewer cases found in in the records of the provincial synods. For the period covered by this book, those cases we do see appear to have been the most grievous. It is probable that these cases were referred to the plenary synod due to their gravity, or that the penalty suggested by the synederium was changed by the plenary session of the Lithuanian provincial synod. Cases involving clergy are discussed in Chapter 6. It should be noted, however, that we have one case where the punishment meted out by church discipline was not to be found in the gospel. The 1615 Lithuanian synod sentenced the minister Wardyński to spend three days in solitary confinement for different but unnamed “excesses.” He was not to lose his ministerial standing unless his superintendent decided otherwise after a visitation.87 The proceedings of the 1615 Lithuanian synod contain most of the cases involving lay members of the church. It is not clear why this would be so—​ perhaps the first session of the synederium (established only a year earlier) did not go well or the synod wanted to review its first decisions. The first case concerned a nobleman, Mikołaj Wołodkowicz, “who caused great scandal in God’s congregation with the evil use or rather defilement of the Lord’s sacrament.”88 The details were not given, but he was to be summoned before the district synod and ordered to do penance in front of those assembled, and was barred from partaking of the Lord’s Supper for one year. The local minister, who had allowed him to partake that Easter Sunday too hastily, was to apologize to the Szydłów congregation during the communion service on Michaelmas.89 The 1615 synod also excommunicated two members of the Vilnius congregation for adultery.90 Another cursory reference to church discipline among the lay members of the Vilnius congregation is from 1629.91 86

AS 2011, 17–​18; R. Miklauskas, Karność kościelna w ustawodawstwie Jednoty Litewskiej, (Warszawa: 1998), 47–​48. 87 AS 1915, 33. 88 Ibid., 31. 89 Ibid., 31. 90 Ibid., 32–​34. 91 AS 2011, 52.

Church Discipline

103

The last case regarding a layperson and church discipline dealt with by the Lithuanian provincial synod before the 1634 Włodawa Convocation is that of Jan Borodzicz, a burgher from the Nowogródek congregation. Before 1634, he was admonished many times by his minister, Andrzej Musonius (d. 1662/​1663), for the sins of perjury and harlotry—​he probably used the services of prostitutes on regular basis. When admonishments were not effective, the case was referred to the synederium, and then to the plenary session of the synod. Those gathered remarked that Borodzicz’s sins had caused scandal in the Nowogródek congregation, and it needed to prevent “such scandal in God’s Church.”92 The synod ordered “the second level of discipline is laid on him, so that he is not allowed ad usum Sacra Coenae and he is by his pastor publicae from the pulpit named.”93 It also further ruled that should Borodzicz “hold in disdain this discipline, and God’s Church, whom he scandalized and continues to scandalize, [and] does not plead [for forgiveness], then after that pastor’s notice to the superintendent, God willing, at the next synod [he] will be penalized with ultimo gradu discipline.”94 The case was dealt with by the 1635 synod, and the proceedings show just how deeply theologically based the church’s approach was. The synod remarked that Borodzicz had not repented and held the barring from holy communion in disdain. The synod therefore “by the power of the [entire] assembly” ordered that the Vilnius superintendent go to the Nowogródek congregation and during the communion service on Michaelmas formally excommunicate the obdurate sinner. But Michaelmas was still a few months away, and those gathered still held hope that Borodzicz would come to his senses and repent of his sins in time. Thus, the same synod also instructed the local pastor “in the meantime” to use this threat of excommunication “and other pious means (…) so that this allegedly ill member of the body [be] healed and by the body of God’s Church be retained.”95 Initially, the Greater Poland Brethren’s disciplinary practice was quite different from the Calvinist churches. It is interesting to note that the shift occurred after the death of the old and conservative senior Symeon Teofil Turnowski (d. 1608), who tried unsuccessfully to stall the Brethren’s drift towards Calvinism. We should remember that lay seniors in the Brethren were not chosen until 1609 during the “noble’s synod.” Their obligations mirrored almost exactly those adopted by the 1595 Toruń General Synod—​in fact, the latter’s proceedings were read out first. The lay seniors “in these worst, Sodom-​like godless 92 Ibid., 117. 93 Ibid., 117. 94 Ibid., 117. 95 Ibid., 134.

104 

Chapter 5

times of the world”96 were charged with settling disputes among the congregations and admonishing the faithful for sins that warranted church discipline. However, unlike the other two Churches, they were not allowed to impose any sanctions on their own, but rather were required to refer the cases to the senior (bishop) and the synod of ministers for future actions.97 Because private admonition by the minister was still the norm, the cases that made their way to the synods (still predominantly clerical affairs) were very few, and often had advisory character. In 1611, the synod advised that women who bear children out of wedlock, if the father was not known (and therefore could not be pressured to marry), should do public penance before being admitted to holy communion, but that such children should not be denied baptism. That same synod also barred its minister, Jakub Mollerus (d. 1612), from celebrating the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper until he expressed contrition for not attending the synod “unless he has better excuses than those he put forward in his letter.”98 A year later during their meeting in Poznań, the seniors advised the minister Kacper Speratus (d. 1631) about his patron, Lord Korzbok-​Zawadzki, who was “heavy [handed] with his subjects.”99 They stated: “Privatim with the conversation about the conscience he would admonish him. Also, [he should] talk about it with the Lady [the patron’s wife]. And if these means would not help, then he should publice, but with prudence, admonish [the patron].”100 Apart from the very practical advice to talk with the wife hoping she could influence her husband to moderation, church discipline was to be carried out by the minister alone. This, it was hoped, would be enough to bring about a change in the sinner. There is faint anecdotal evidence that in those few Brethren congregations that had lay congregational elders before 1634 there might have been some lay participation in church discipline, but it was probably confined to admonishments and motivating the pastor to act.101 5.3

Reformed Church Discipline after the 1634 Włodawa Convocation

As with liturgy and church structure, the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation and the Great Gdańsk Agenda of 1637 marked a change and contained 96 asr iv, 207. 97 Ibid., 199, 203, 206–​207. 98 Ibid., 234, 239. 99 Ibid., 243. 100 Ibid., 243. 101 asr iv, 171, 182, 314, 379.

Church Discipline

105

some standardization of the practice of church discipline in the three Reformed Churches. Church discipline is found in the sections relating to church ­synods.102 The Great Gdańsk Agenda identified three purposes of Church discipline, mirroring Calvin’s three uses of the law: i. So that by wanton sinners the Lord’s Name would not be blasphemed (Romans 2:23); ii. So that such evil does not contaminate others and does not lead [them] on the way towards damnation (1 Cor. 5:6,7) iii. So that even such evildoer through shame and condemnation, satanic persecution, and troubling of the conscience be woken to sincere remorse and honest contrition, forsake his sin, and humbling himself in front of God from then on walk in newness of life and bear fruits of righteousness with others to the glory of God (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 2:7; 2 Thess 3:14). Thus, anyone can see that such an expulsion from God’s congregation is a medicine for the soul towards salvation, [and] not despair to condemnation unless an expelled obdurate evildoer be unwilling or unable to repent.103 The Agenda continued, explaining that whereas the church is called to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, it cannot admit to it unrepentant sinners. Therefore, such a celebration is a means of showing them their sins, and that by being subject to church discipline, they can come to repentance, and back to the communion. In practice, the Great Gdańsk Agenda blended the elements of the Brethren with the Reformed from Lesser Poland and Lithuania. The first level of discipline involved just a few individuals. It began with a private conversation between the minister and the sinner. There the pastor was to admonish the sinner privately. If the first admonition was not effective, the minister would call two or three elders of the congregation and meet with the sinner a second time. If the sinner persisted, the pastor could independently bar the sinner from holy communion, but only for one celebration. Although not stated explicitly, such a ban was not made public beyond the sinner, pastor, and elders involved. The influence of the Brethren is most clearly visible here. The role of the lay seniors at this level is advisory and supportive of the minister, much as

1 02 Agenda Wielka, 349, 351. 103 Agenda Wielka, Summowanie Nauki o Kluczach, Pnkt X, 410.

106 

Chapter 5

established by the 1609 Brethren synod. Once again, there is deep wisdom here on behalf of the Calvinists gathered in Włodawa: by focusing thus far on the minister, the Brethren were better able to accept the entire church discipline process, which was a significant innovation for them.104 The second level of discipline involved laymen in decision-​making. If the sinner did not repent of his sin, the minister was to bring his case to the attention of the “seniors’ consistorium” of the congregation.105 Because up until this time the majority of Brethren did not have lay seniors on congregational level, this was a major change in their church polity. These congregational consistories were now to summon the public and unrepentant sinner and admonish him as a corporate body. If the sinner continued to be obdurate, the consistory was to bar him from communion and publically announce it to the congregation during the sacrament’s next celebration. From that time on, if the sinner repented and his repentance was accepted, he had to do so publicly. The role of the laity was further underlined by the fact that it was the consistory who had to accept the contrition, and its decision was to be made public in front of the congregation. The third and final step was to take place only if, after three admonitions and being barred from the Lord’s Supper twice, the member continued to wallow in sin. The pastor and the lay seniors were to refer the case to the provincial synod, the only body allowed to excommunicate members. This was a change for the Reformed in Lesser Poland, where excommunications had been previously handled by district synods. This also allowed the practice for district synods to continue to function as consistories—​something crucial for smaller congregations. It is worth pointing out that an excommunication did not bar the sinner from attending services and listening to sermons. It was hoped that he would attend services and by doing so be moved to change his sinful ways. Any repentance for an excommunication had to be made publicly in front of the provincial synod.106 The provisions of the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation and the 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda reshaped the practice of church discipline in the three Churches, but in different ways. The strongest of the three Churches, the Lithuanian Reformed, used these procedures, with minor changes, until the eighteenth century. The Brethren Church had more adjustments to make. Congregations began to elect and call lay elders—​called “seniors”—​on the congregational level, and church discipline began to be exercised by both lay members and 1 04 Miklauskas, Karność, 19–​20. 105 Ibid., 20. 106 Ibid., 20–​21.

Church Discipline

107

pastors. Already in 1633, the synod in Leszno devoted a special extended section to church discipline, seeing it as a necessary tool for reinvigorating church life. Lay elders were to assist their ministers in congregations, particularly because those “tepid in their piety will not allow punishment.”107 Interestingly, the small congregation in Żychlin began in 1634 not only a book, sadly now lost, of its baptized, married, and deceased, but also a register of “communicants and penitents”—​demonstrating the link between church discipline and holy communion. Again, as the canons of the 1633 Leszno synod prescribed, this was to happen “before each communion, or if there is such a need, for the cleaning of debauchery and to avoid scandal.”108 In 1633 and on the eve of the Włodawa Convocation in Leszno, the Brethren and Lutheran congregations under the auspices of Rafał ii Leszczyński signed a preliminary agreement seeking to establish a joint church council composed of six members from each of the congregations. Clergy and laity were to avoid derogatory name-​calling, they would run one church school together, and the joint council was to apply church discipline in both congregations. The terms of the agreement specifically call out the lack of church discipline among the Lutherans.109 Despite being hailed by John Dury (1596–​1680) as an example of how different Protestants in Europe could unite, and although Dury had printed the agreement of the text in Cologne in 1635, the efforts came to naught.110 The changes brought by the Włodawa General Convocation, and the fact that the Lutherans in Greater Poland managed to rebuild their flagging denominational structures, in the end doomed the project and the joint parish council never materialized.111 Change, though more gradual, also occurred with the Lesser Poland Reformed. District—​ rather than provincial—​ synods continued to manage church-​ discipline cases and pronounce excommunications despite Great Gdańsk Agenda’s provisions. Excommunications rarely appear in the records of Lesser Poland Reformed Church provincial synods after 1634. In 1649, the 1 07 Muz. Pr. XVII D 8, fol. 16. 108 Ibid., fol. 17. 109 K. E.  Jordt Jørgensen, Ökumenische Bestrebungen unter den polnischen Protestanten bis zum Jahre 1645 (Køpenhavn: 1943), 375. 110 The title: De pace ecclesiastica inter evangelicos. Accessit decretum comitis Lesnensis, quo Augustanae confessionis civibus Lesnae Polonorum publicum religionis suae conceditur exercitium. 111 Jørgensen, Ökumenische, 373–​376; M. Pawelec, “Między konfesjonalizmem a irenizmem. Stosunki pomiędzy Kościołami protestanckimi w drugiej ćwierci XVII w. na obszarze ziemie wschowskiej,” in: ed. P. Klint, M. Małkus, K. Szymańska, Ziemia wschowska w czasach starosty Hieronima Radomickiego (Wschowa-​Leszno: 2009), 167.

108 

Chapter 5

provincial synod ruled that if the offender nobleman Stadnicki was to lapse back into his unspecified sin, the excommunication pronounced on him by the district synod a month earlier was to be automatically reinstated, which suggests the excommunication was suspended. A second case was that of Henryk Vartensius, a minister from the Dublany congregation in the Ruthenia district. He was to be excommunicated in 1654, but there were continuing delays and inquiries and his case was still not resolved by 1660.112 Moreover, church discipline cases slowly disappear from the Lesser Poland Reformed district synods as well: Elżbieta Cikowska and Jan Kotek were excommunicated (for unrelated infractions) respectively in 1641 and 1649 by the Chęciny district, and reinstated by the same district respectively in 1647 and 1650.113 In 1653, the nobleman Seweryn Bonar was threatened with excommunication by the Chęciny district for living with a married woman, unless he dismissed her from his household and did public penance in front of the Wielkanoc congregation. He was warned not to take this admonition lightly.114 In 1666, the Chęciny district synod excommunicated Mikołaj Russocki (d.c. 1674), owner of the Calvinist village in Kozy, for his refusal to repay the church a substantial loan (he was “reconciled with God’s church” in 1670).115 It also separately threatened with excommunication his two sons, Jan and Piotr, for living “cum primo scandalo” unless they changed their ways.116 But with time, the openness in dealing with church discipline during church synods in Lesser Poland changed. In 1655, during the visitation of the Malice congregation in the Sandomir district, the local minister said that normally, his (and a few elders’) discreet admonishment was enough to bring about repentance. If not, “always in sessions preceeding holy communion they endeavor to bring about reconciliation.”117 After the “Deluge,” the embattled Lesser Poland Calvinists forced themselves into acting with even more discretion, though some cases still made their way to the church records. In its petitions to the provincial church, the 1661 district synod of Sandomir asked to find ways to prevent church-​discipline cases from going beyond the local congregation. This appears to have been exactly what happened. The principle reason for church discipline, that is to restore a wayward member of the Church to full membership before holy communion, remained 1 12 113 114 115 116 117

buw ser 592, 88, 84; Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 243 et passim. buw ser 593, fol. 42, 44, 77, 84, 91. buw ser 592, fol. 109, 111. Ibid., fol. 160. Ibid., fol. 151. Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 439.

Church Discipline

109

the same after 1634. The 1653 decision on Seweryn Bonnar explicitly said that he was to make public penance in front of the whole church after the November visitation—​but if did not repent and amend his life “this Excommunica is to be performed at the next Communion [service].”118 That same Chęciny district sent a delegation to admonish two noble members of the congregation in Łużna, noblewoman Kępińska for her drunkenness and nobleman Borysowski for his adultery, and unless they repented, they were to be barred from the Christmastide communion service. Borysowski’s sentence was confirmed a year later at the district synod in Chmielnik, and his sentence was to be read out “at the next Communion congregation [service].”119 The only major context in which the general issue of church discipline appears post-​1634 in the Lesser Reformed Church records is in the Lublin congregation. Following the 1633 tumult, the congregation’s services were moved to the nearby private town of Bełżyce, but the congregation retained its separate elders and pastors. However, the turmoil led to a fracturing of the congregation, much like in Cracow in 1591. It appears that the Polish nobles, the Scots, and the German burghers did not want to continue as one congregation. The 1637 district synod in Kock ordered the noble “seniors politici” (lay elders) of the Lublin congregation to bring to heed the Scottish members by threatening them with church discipline. The Scots may have complied, but in 1638, the Lublin Lutherans requested formally full freedom of worship with their own church, pastor, and elders. That year’s district synod avoided the question. Instead, it hired a minister from the Palatine, Jakub Mylius (1594–​1651),120 who appears to have brought peace for a short time. In 1641, the district convocation in Bełżyce ruled that Lutherans were not barred from being elders in Lublin, provided they united with the “orthodox,” meaning Calvinist, congregation.121 That is exactly what the Lutherans resisted, suspecting that the Reformed Church’s goal was domination. The Lutherans were concerned that the Lutherans were using church discipline to convert to Calvinism, just as was done in the Cracow congregation. A year later, in 1642, the district synod in Biłgoraj ordered that all the members of the Lublin congregation appear on the eve of a communion service and present themselves for discipline before the afternoon service. This rule was explicitly extended to the seniors of “both nations.” Tensions exploded after Mylius left Bełżyce in 1643 for the Grand Duchy, taking with him some of the congregation’s books, which he 1 18 119 120 121

buw ser 592, fol. 106. Ibid., fol. 117. S. Tworek, Jakub Mylius (1594–​1651), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 353. boz 1183, fol. 17, 24, 46.

110 

Chapter 5

refused to return. This caused additional annoyance in an already rancorous congregation. By the time of the 1646 district synod in Bełżyce, the Lublin congregation was effectively divided, with some members attending church services in Bełżyce while others went to Piaski Luterskie, another private Calvinist town. The last attempt to hold the congregation together (and the Lutherans within the Reformed orbit) came during the 1650 district synod in Bełżyce. The Lublin congregation sent seven elders (two Germans, two Scots, one Huguenot, and two Poles)—​perhaps an attempt to copy a solution that once worked in Cracow. The synod ruled that members of the Lublin congregation would attend holy communion alternating between the churches Bełżyce and in Piaski. Ministers from both towns would be notified, and both were to be regarded as the congregation’s co-​pastors. Before the sacrament’s celebration, “session and disciplinam solemnitater is to be held in persentio both of the ministers for the maintaining of good order between them.”122 By that time, the Lutherans of Lublin had had enough, and secured a privilege from the Calvinist owner of Piaski Luterskie, Adam Suchodolski (d. 1656), to build their own church in his town, which they accomplished in 1662.123 It is interesting to note that while church discipline was used here as a tool to bring the congregation back together, at the same time no individual cases made it to the district synod, consistent with the post-​Włodawa trend. The question is: did church discipline work to reform the Commonwealth’s Reformed? Let us return to the case of Przecław Bobrownicki in 1606, with which we began this chapter. The admonition by the elders and the pastor appears to have worked, and the spouses reconciled. Bobrownicki also admitted before the whole Włoszczowa congregation that he had sent his wife away without any cause. The reconciliation did not last long, however. Bobrownicki sent his wife away again, insulted the pastor who tried to mediate between them, and moved his mistress into his house. Exactly three years later, the synod in Włoszczowa dealt with him again. No doubt after consulting with the members of the congregation, the synod stated that: “the order of God’s church is by him assaulted and the Lord God insulted, and a great scandal is given, especially to the enemies of God’s glory [local Roman Catholics] is given a reason to mock and insult.”124 The synod ordered Bobrownicki to “clean 1 22 Ibid., fol. 99–​100. 123 K. Bem, “Zarys dziejów zboru ewangelicko-​ reformowanego w Piaskach Luterskich (Wielkich) koło Lublina 1563-​1649-​1849,” OiRwP, 43 (1999): 88; W. Kłaczewski, Adam Suchodolski (zm.1656), PSB, vol. 45 (2008), 264–​265. 124 asr iii, 294.

Church Discipline

111

his household” (code for: send his mistress away) and bring back his wife. The nobleman apologized to the synod and the minister and promised to resume living with his wife (1609). However, during the May 1610 Chęciny district synod in Secemin, it became clear that Bobrownicki had not done what he had promised. When his wife did not appear at the synod due to a lack of funds, Bobrownicki asked to have his excommunication lifted. The synod ordered him to send her money to allow her to attend so they could be reconciled. The September 1610 district synod in Wodzisław excommunicated Bobrownicki but stayed the penalty in the hope that he would comply. He did not, and in February 1611, the district synod in his home congregation of Włoszczowa confirmed the verdict. Even then, the sentence was not entered into church records, as those gathered were hoping for a last-​minute reconciliation. The inevitable excommunication of Bobrownicki occurred during the May 1611 district synod of Secemin.125 Przecław Bobrownicki disappears until 1617 when he wrote to the district synod, inquiring how the penalty could be lifted, and pleading for it to be done. Those gathered replied that because both the sin and the excommunication were public, so too must be the penance. Bobrownicki was not prepared to do that. He wrote again in 1620 “with lacrymis,”126 begging that the excommunication be lifted. The district referred the case to the provincial synod, which did not address the request. In 1621 Bobrownicki persuaded his estranged wife to intercede for him, but the synod was adamant: “To her Ladyship Bobrownicka, interceding for her excommunicated husband for the church penalty to be removed, write back that this cannot happen in any way, until he, having reconciled with her, starts living with her, and [all of that cannot happen] until he cleans his house.”127 Bobrownicki was trying to get the excommunication lifted while living with his mistress!128 This case received a new twist, when c.  1622 Jerzy Bobrownicki, the couple’s son, began to work towards their reconciliation, and his father’s restoration to the church. The 1623 synod was pleased and promised that if both spouses appeared and were reconciled, it would lift the excommunication; the mistress must have been out of the picture. However, Anna Bobrownicka sickened and died in the summer of 1623. The long saga finally came to an end during the May 1625 district synod in Włoszczowa. At last, Przecław Bobrownicki performed public penance for his sins “according to the order of God’s 1 25 Ibid., 301–​303, 311–​313. 126 Ibid., 420. 127 Ibid., 425. 128 Ibid., 388, 420.

112 

Chapter 5

church”129 in the presence of his congregation and the district synod. Although it took 19 years, church discipline brought the wayward son back to the bosom of the Church.130 There is a coda to the Bobrownicki story. Having been reconciled to the Reformed Church he was estranged from for almost two decades, Przecław Bobrownicki became an active member—​a lay elder of his congregation—​and attended many synods. Shortly before his death in the summer of 1630, he decided to build a Reformed church on his estate of Łapczyńska Wola. It was completed by his pious son in 1633.131 It functioned until the mid-​eighteenth century, and the ruins exist to this day. The Bobrownicki family remained Calvinist for nine generations. They were generous and dedicated faithful of their small Reformed Church until 1938 when the last two female members of the family converted to Roman Catholicism. The strict Calvinist church discipline had not weakened, but rather strengthened, their Reformed faith and church allegiance. 1 29 Ibid., 465. 130 Ibid., 446, 449, 465. 131 Dep. Wil. 38, fol. 511.

­c hapter 6

The Ministry The June 1601 proceedings of the district synod in Lublin began on a rather unpleasant note. The assembled clergymen dealt with accusations against their colleague, the minister and senior of Bełz, Krzysztof Serpentyn. After considering all of the evidence, they found him guilty of an impressive list of crimes including, but not limited to: armed robbery; espionage for the Turks; falsely accusing a fellow minister of adultery; causing the suicide of two commoners through other false accusations; abandoning his wife; and finally, impregnating a servant girl then poisoning her while she was in labor (probably a botched abortion). The Lublin Reformed divines excommunicated him and defrocked him forever, and they sent the verdict to all the parties and areas in the Commonwealth where the scoundrel could be found. The seriousness of the case may have contributed to the fact that the entirety of the next day was spent on celebrating the Lord’s Supper “with great upbuilding and multiplication of God’s glory.”1 Having established their Reformed Churches, the faithful soon faced the need to regulate the new Reformed ministry:  vocation, education, training, and disciplinary procedures. Now that ministers of the Gospel were legally married, the faithful found themselves in the uncharted territory of regulating the ministers’ married lives, as well as providing for their families. This process was by no means unique to Poland, and in this chapter, I will demonstrate how Calvinist ministry came into being in the three provinces, what they had in common, and what was distinct to each Reformed Church. Unlike in other countries, Catholic bishops rarely defected to the Reformed movement, even though the Polish bishops were not necessarily pillars of virtue and shining examples of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Far from it: Paweł Uchański was accused of covering his ears when Marian songs were sung, Leonard Słończewski preached rousing anti-​episcopal sermons, and the archbishop of Cracow, Andrzej Zebrzydowski, was reputed to be an atheist. During the 1551 Roman Catholic synod, the papal nuncio, together with representatives of cathedral chapters, publically examined several Polish bishops, accusing some of possessing Protestant books, holding heretical beliefs, or allowing communion in both kinds. All were ultimately cleared of any charges, 1 asr iii, 223–​224.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_007

114 

Chapter 6

although Bishop Drohojowski was forced to dismiss his chaplain. Protestants later accused some bishops of denying their hidden Protestant beliefs in exchange for a bishopric’s income. But that was too harsh a judgment: most bishops suspected in the 1540s and 1550s of being crypto-​Protestants were closer theologically to Erasmus of Rotterdam and his vision of church reform than to the increasingly militant Calvinism or Roman Catholicism. Ultimately, only two bishops defected to Calvinism. Jan Drohojowski (d. 1557), bishop of Chełm, allegedly denounced the pope as the antichrist and received Protestant communion on his deathbed, surrounded Protestant family and friends. The only case actually verified by sources, though, was Mikołaj Pac (1527–​1585), bishop of Kiev. For more than two decades, he held the see while both a married man and an open Calvinist. His diocese was one of the smallest in the realm, and thus his impact was minimal on both the local clergy and faithful—​though a huge embarrassment to the Catholics.2 In the years predating the Unitarian schism in 1565, most, although not all, Calvinist clergy were former Catholic priests and monks who had converted to the cause, frequently together with their noble patrons. Feliks Cruciger (d. 1563) began as a Catholic priest, became a Protestant pastor in Koźminek, and served there until Jakub Ostroróg replaced him with a Brethren minister. Cruciger then moved to Lesser Poland where Stanisław Szafraniec appointed him as the minister in Secemin. He was chosen as the first superintendent of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church in 1555. His career came to an end in 1561, when Szafrniec expelled him for his anti-​Trinitarian sympathies. He was not alone in his spiritual odyssey. In Bełżyce, the town’s owner Andrzej Bzicki settled his married priest brother, Jan, as minister. Jan Bzicki also later joined the Polish Brethren. Stanisław Lutomirski (1520–​1575) began his career as a Roman Catholic priest in Konin, Greater Poland. After officially embracing Calvinism, he was ejected from the benefice in 1556, and was settled as a Protestant minister in his cousin’s estate in Lesser Poland. Theologically well read, in 1554 he had already written down his own confession of faith, which he forwarded to the king and primate. He became Jan Łaski’s close collaborator, and married Łaski’s daughter Barbara in 1558. In 1563, Lutomirski was elected superintendent of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church, but following the 1565 split, he joined the Polish Brethren.3 2 Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 423–​428; H. Kowalska, Leonard Słończewski (zm. 1562), PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000), 30–​34; S. Kot, Jan Drohojowski (ok. 1505–​1557), PSB, vol. 5 (1939/​1946), 380–​382; H. Wyczawski, Mikołaj Pac (ok. 1527–​1585), PSB, vol. 24, (1979), 736–​737. 3 W. Pociecha, Andrzej Bzicki (zm. 1567), PSB, vol. 3 (1937), 185–​186; Kowalska, Stanisław Lutomirski, PSB, 144–​146.

The Ministry

115

Most ministers were of plebeian origin—​not just in the first stages of the Reformation, but in later generations too. Thus, Jan Grzybowski (1571–​1641), Lublin district senior and Lesser Poland superintendent, was originally a serf from Kock, who converted to Calvinism while attending the town’s school. The same was true for Andrzej Herman (c. 1581–​1640), a serf from of Kozy. He was freed by his landlord in 1610 after returning from theological studies at Heidelberg and became a pastor of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church. The harshness displayed towards the minister Mikołaj Dasyp in 1607 (see below) suggests that he remained a serf even after he was ordained. Jakub Gembicki (1569–​ 1633) and Franciszek Płachta (c. 1560–​1634) were sons of burghers from royal and private towns. From the seventeenth century onward, ministers’ ranks swelled with descendants of Czech and Scottish burghers and merchants and the Reformed clergy in the Crown remained predominantly plebeian. Only in the Grand Duchy did the Reformed ministry attract nobles from families like Grużewski, Wolan, Lutomirski, and Mackiewicz, etc.4 The formation of Reformed clergy was thrown into disarray by the Unitarian schism of 1565. More than half of the ministers, together with the superintendent Lutomirski, moved to the Polish Brethren. Defections in both directions continued for the next decade or so: In his old age, Stancaro reconciled with the Reformed and his son, Franciszek Stankar the Younger (1562–1621), later became the Lesser Poland Church’s superintendent. Stancaro’s male descendants served congregations in the Reformed Church in the Grand Duchy until the end of the eighteenth century.5 As late as 1596, the minister in Wysokie in the Lublin district was removed after admitting to Unitarian beliefs while under theological questioning by the seniors.6 For the period beforec. 1595, the most-​detailed data on clergy comes from the Brethren. Brethren seniors’ tight supervision of the ministers, as well as their theological distinctiveness, kept their clergy stable, and not a single minister converted to the Polish Brethren or to Catholicism. However, candidates did defect to the Lutherans or left for secular professions. In 1595, the senior Turnowski noted that four young men who were preparing for the ministry

4 asr iii, 609–​610; B. Jurzak, “Ks. Andrzej Herman z Kóz (ok. 1581–​1630). Chłopski kaznodzieja krakowskich ewangelików,” in Reformacja w Krakowie (XVI-​XVII wiek). Materiały z sesji naukowej 6 maja 2017 roku (Kraków: 2018), 129–​138; L. Szczucki, Jan Grzybowski (1571–​1641), PSB, vol. 9 (1960/​1961), 106–​10; W. Urban, Andrzej Herman (ok. 1581–​1630), PSB, vol. 9 (1960/​1961), 463–​464; idem, Franciszek Płachta Seceminius (ok. 1560–​1634), PSB, vol. 26 (1981), 763–​764. 5 E. Cherner, Słownik Biograficzny duchownych ewangelicko-​reformowanych. Jednota Litewska i Jednota Wileńska 1815–​1939 (Warszawa: 2017), 47, 263. 6 asr iii, 179–​180.

116 

Chapter 6

“went into the world.”7 The loss of Jan Ampilas, educated in Altdorf, Heidelberg, and Basel, was particularly costly: The young man chose to be a medical doctor in Toruń, rather than a minister.8 The Brethren quickly recognized the importance of educated clergy despite their humble backgrounds. The first two generations of Brethren ministers in Poland began their education by studying with older ministers, and were sent on to Protestant gymnasiums in Gdańsk, Toruń in the Commonwealth, or Brieg in Silesia. Initially, only the fortunate few secured scholarships from the magnates and could boast university education—​hence the defection to a secular profession by Ampilas was so painful. But the number of university graduates rose quickly. Theological education in Basel and Heidelberg also had the unforeseen effect of accelerating the Brethren’s theological shift to Calvinism.9 The Reformed ministry stabilized after 1595, when the threat of defections to the Polish Brethren subsided, and the Reformed churches slowly rebuilt and consolidated their structures. Oddly enough, the many mentions of infractions committed by the clergy after 1595 did not actually demonstrate a struggling church barely able to rein in the adulterers, drunks, heretics, and even the occasional murderer among its ranks. In fact, it revealed churches mature and confident enough in their theology and polity to discipline the wayward clergy, restore them if the contrition was real, and expel them if it was not. In 1607, the minister Mikołaj Dasyp in Lesser Poland was formally defrocked for adultery and drinking. His patron (and landlord?) threatened to behead him, which quickly brought about a conversion. While Dasyp was not restored to ministry, his life was spared. He was to prostrate himself on the floor of the during every Sunday church service for a year, wear a cilice for that year, and permanently to abstain from any alcoholic beverage. Any violation of these provisions made him subject to additional discipline, including prison and death.10 The most common scandals associated with clergy involved either alcohol abuse or adultery. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the late 1620s saw the synods dealing with several ministers who struggled with alcoholism. In 1629, the provincial synod suspended Daniel Papłoński, the minister in Kiejdany, for some time and advised him tersely to consume “no other strong drink but 7 8

asr iv, 361. Ibid., 158, M. Sippayło, “Stosunki Leszczyńskich z uniwersytetem bazylejskim,” OiRwP 8 (1963): 111–​114. 9 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 47–​48, 73–​74. 10 asr iii, 609–​610.

The Ministry

117

water.”11 The synod gave the same advice to the minister in Kojdanów, Andrzej Baranowski. Sometimes the clergy came to their senses (both literally and figuratively speaking), but when they did not, the synods, while patient, were not to be played for fools. Papłoński was warned again in 1630, but after he showed little progress, he was defrocked and removed from the ministry in 1631. That same year, his colleague Baranowski was degraded from minister to lector for the same infraction.12 A more serious case was handled at the 1631 provincial synod of the Lithuanian Reformed. That year, the synod pronounced and entered into the records the lengthy excommunication of the minister Jan Krośniewiecki from Kuchcice for his repeated adultery. He was “forever” barred from the “the office of preacher,” a sentence that was to be read publicly from the pulpit in his church. He was barred from holy communion until he publicly repented. One year later, the synod noticed “with joy” that Krośniewiecki repented publically in the Kojdanów church and allowed him to work as a teacher. In 1633, after receiving letters of recommendation from fellow ministers and “people of other denomination,” the synod annulled its 1631 decision and restored him to ministry, sending him to Wijżuny.13 Some ministers attempted to change church provinces in order to escape their problems. Jakub Biskupski (d. c. 1649) was ordained to serve in the town of Jedlińsk, Lesser Poland, in 1611, but was suspended in 1616 for constantly bickering with the town’s burghers—​most of whom were Calvinist. He was ordered to bring written proof that he had apologized to them and was to be moved to another congregation. Biskupski found a powerful ally to plead his case—​the senior Krzysztof Kraiński—​and the synod relented, allowing him to remain in Jedlińsk for one more year, provided he fulfill all other requirements of his penance. He did not, and he was suspended in 1618. The 1619 district synod ordered Biskupski to reside with the superintendent Stankar, who was to supervise him. The wayward minister was assigned the following project: “in the interim he is to write a treaty on sins, especially on how the Lord God is by sin disgusted, how he promised to punish those who lay in sin unrepentant, especially [those] ministers, whose life does not correspond to the teachings [of the Gospel]; and he [Biskupski] is to write a confession of his sins.”14 Biskupski did not appreciate the synod’s sarcasm and instead moved to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There, again, he found a powerful patron in the 11 12 13 14

AS 2011, 51. Ibid., 52, 72, 88–​89. Ibid., 88–​89, 96,107. asr iii, 409.

118 

Chapter 6

person of Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł, who arranged his speedy restoration to the ministry in 1622, when the Lithuanian synod settled him in the church in Dubinki. However, in 1627, he came under the Lithuanian synod’s watchful eye—​this time for drinking. In 1631, he was given one last chance and was threatened with being defrocked. He swore, in front of the synod, that he would drink alcohol only as prescribed by a physician or during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Biskupski appeared to have kept his word. In 1637, he was listed as the konsenior of Podlasie district of the Lithuanian Reformed Church, and pastor in Ostaszyn.15 Clergy were held to higher standards. The Brethren were particularly rigorous and considered any interest in matters other than theology to be scandalous. The senior Symeon Teofil Turnowski admitted to having a passion for astronomy, but he quickly remarked that he concentrated on “how to carry people to heaven” and assured his readers that “to play with astronomy I don’t have the time.”16 Jan Pietraszek (d. 1595), a minister in Żygry, was reputed to be a great astronomer, but perhaps it was his peripheral, tiny congregation and lack of ecclesiastical ambition that allowed him such pursuits—​and more importantly, escape church censure. His son, Jan Pietraszek the Younger, a minister in Cienin, was admonished in 1608 for dabbling in medicine, while Maciej Nachor Paszkowski (d. 1617) was admonished in 1611 “for unnecessary painting” and curtly ordered to “stop playing with it.”17 The latter obeyed, but the former renounced ministry and became a doctor. In 1623, the minister Gabriel Hazler from Kondraciszki in the Grand Duchy was rebuked for spending time on astrology and medicine. The synod told him to pay more attention to his vocation and forgo astrology altogether; as to medicine, the Reformed was slightly more accommodating:  “If he wants to play with medicine, so let him play with it, that it would not be an impediment to his own [ministerial] office.”18 The faithful realized that the high standards were more of a benchmark to aspire to, rather than a reality to be enforced. When in 1573 the Czech Brethren seniors solemnly and pompously charged the patrons to settle only “pious and non-​debauched ministers” in their churches, the nobles replied with sarcasm that they “would gladly buy those, if shown a market with them.”19

15 Ibid., 315–​316, 385–​387, 396; AS 1915, 70–​73; AS 2011, 30, 89, 103, 133, 172. 16 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 70. 17 asr iv, 234, 380. 18 AS 1915, 78. 19 asr iv, 30.

The Ministry

119

The only field other than theology in which ministers could work was music, specifically church music. Piotr Artomiusz (1552–​1609) was celebrated not only as a good preacher, but also as a hymnal editor. He compiled two different editions of a hymnal—​Kancjonał—​in 1586 and 1601; the 1601 edition was republished after his death in 1611. It became very popular among Polish Protestants and was known as the Artomiusz Kancjonał. It was published many additional times in the seventeenth century. Another Brethren minister, Jakub Gembicki (1569–​1633), was very active in preparing the Brethren 1619 Kancjonał printed in Gdańsk and also published his own translation of Psalms, setting them to the tunes by the Huguenot Calude Goudimel (1514–​1572).20 Suspensions from ministry were issued for serious matters. During the 1614 visitation of the Brethren church in Marszewo, the minister Maciej Cyring (d. 1617)  was accused of abusing alcohol, leading worship while drunk, fighting with his wife and servants, failing in daily prayers, and wrecking the parsonage. After he was suspended, he blamed his wife and yelled so loudly that the visiting seniors could hear him through the walls. Even then, they hinted that he could be restored if he repented and changed his ways. Tellingly, some members of his congregation thought that alcohol abuse was not serious enough to warrant a minister’s suspension, pointing out it was not as grave as assault or murder. However, they did admit, “no one can deny that he did not get drunk.”21 Post-​1595 there were few cases of clerical apostasy. During the 1601 Lublin district synod, the minister Jan Radziszowski from Wierzchowiska was suspended for a year for a combination of drinking, threatening to become Roman Catholic, and not attending Church synods. At the next year’s synods, after he wrote a letter of contrition, he was forgiven his temporary apostasy (out of compassion for his children) and restored to church membership, but not the ministry.22 In May 1616, the district synod and convocation in Secemin excommunicated the town’s pastor, Grzegorz Jankowski, who earlier that year had converted to Catholicism, burnt the church’s library, and fled, causing a considerable scandal in the Calvinist town.23 In 1641, Zachariasz Krasnowicki, a minister in Montwidów in the Grand Duchy, converted to Roman Catholicism. He may have been traumatized by the events in 1640, when a mob led by a Catholic priest stormed his church during worship, threw him from the 20 21 22 23

K. Smolarek, “Piotr Artomiusz i jego kancjonał toruński z końca XVI wieku,” Rocznik Toruński 41 (2014): 169–​186; D. Young, Gdańskie Hymny Jakuba Gembickiego (Gdańsk-​ Gniezno: 2014), passim. asr iv, 384–​385. asr iii, 224, 234–​235. Ibid., 267–​268.

120 

Chapter 6

pulpit, beat up the worshippers, and tried to torch the building. The Lithuanian synod pointed out his “unbridled drunkenness and other vices,” excommunicated him, and defrocked him for his “going over to the camp of adversaries in the hope of a better future.” Indeed, the Jesuits did give him a small, one-​time stipend.24 Defections of clergy were not limited to Roman Catholicism: In 1635, ministers gathered in the rural congregation of Sielec and excommunicated the local pastor Paweł Żarnowita (d.1681), son of the respected Calvinist polemist Grzegorz z Żarnowca (d. 1601). They removed him from the ministry for converting to Unitarianism and banished for three years.25 The 1627 synod of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania removed the German-​speaking minister in Vilnius, Reinhold von Reitz, for his apostasy to Unitarianism.26 But not all defections were permanent. Żarnowita fled to the Grand Duchy where he returned to Calvinism and already by 1638 was serving as a Calvinist pastor. Before he died in 1681 he attained the rank of the superintendent of the district of Nowogródek and later of Vilnius. And after his death the synod described him as a “man once mighty in God’s Church.” His direct descendants served as pastors until 1806.27 Among the Brethren, perhaps the most notorious case of apostasy was that of Łukasz Herlicz (d.c. 1600). A Jewish convert to the Brethren, he helped with translations from Hebrew, but he remained a restless spirit. Ordained an acolyte in 1575, he served a number of churches before being assigned to assist the aging senior Symeon Teofil Turnowski in Ostroróg. In 1600, he accused the respected church leader of gluttony. Due to his general lack of suitability for the ministry, Herlicz was ultimately dismissed.28 Post-​1595, there was an increased interest shown in the lives and behaviors of ministers’ wives. Back in 1580, faced with the new reality of their ministers marrying, the Czech Brethren created an impressive list of qualities a minister’s spouse should possess. Its length and detail testify to the fact that these older, unmarried men approached the issue from a purely theoretical perspective. A minister’s wife was at minimum to be “honest, modest, not a gossip, not prone to anger, serious, sober, not drunk, not prone to party, to run to neighbors or to ladies for lunches and dinners.”29 The pious Brethren men did not,

24 25 26 27 28 29

AS 2020, 46; D.  Frick, Kith, Kin, and Neighbors. Communities and Confesssions in Seventeenth Century Wilno (Cornel University Press: 2013), 333. Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 203. AS 2011, 29–​30. AS 2011, 171; AS 2019, 11, 27, 50; Konarski, Szlachta, 343. asr iv, 160; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 150–​151. asr iv, 66.

The Ministry

121

of course, forget to regulate the manner of dress, forbidding minister’s wives to wear damask, satin, silver belts, or rings. In general, a minister’s wife should dress modestly and be clean—​“not like a pig; after all, she [is not] a peasant woman.”30 Clerical marriages were relatively free of scandals, but there were exceptions. Around 1597, a young acolyte of the Brethren Maciej from Grodzisk seduced the wife of his mentor, the minister Jan Bełdowski (d. 1601). He was expelled from the Brethren and joined the Lutheran Church, who, much to the Brethrens’ disgust, ordained him as pastor.31 In 1611, the adultery of Elżbieta Orlicz, wife of Mikołaj Orlicz (d. 1640), a minister serving in Jedlińsk, Lesser Poland, came out. The case was especially scandalous since she also plotted to kill her husband. That year’s Lublin district synod adjudicated the case: The unfaithful wife was ordered to do penance in front of the entire Jedlińsk congregation with specially worded text in which she explicitly guaranteed his safety. Moreover, much like Hester Prynne, she was ordered to wear black clothing for the rest of her life, with a special black symbol on her neck “a reminder of this mine fall.” The husband who overlooked her adultery, after performing penance for being “a bad guard of his house,” was reinstated to ministry.32 Ministers were deemed responsible for any scandals in their households. This is clear from the case of Aleksander Witrelin, who turned a blind eye to his daughter Jadwiga’s affair with the nobleman Maciej Drohojowski. In September 1626, Witrelin was ordered by the Chęciny district synod to remove her from the nobleman’s house. When Witrelin did not comply, he was excommunicated by the July 1627 synod. The punishment was suspended in the hope that all those involved would see reason. The seniors were only partially successful: The couple continued to live in sin and was excommunicated in 1627. Witrelin, who repented publicly before the synod, was reinstated. Drohojowski repented of his sin publicly in 1629 and his excommunication was lifted. The synods do not record Jadwiga Witrelin’s fate.33 A similar case was handled in 1640 by the Brethren convocation in Leszno. A young and promising candidate for the ministry, Samuel Chryzostom, had 30

31 32 33

Ibid., 66. Similar concerns were voiced by Gilowski in Lesser Poland see W.  Kowalski, “Chrzest jako inicjacja do życia w Kościele oraz odpowiedzialność rodziców za edukacje religijna dzieci w świetle wybranych polskich przewodników katechezy i liturgii drugiej połowy XVI wieku,” in ed. B.  Popiołek, A.  Chłosta-​Sikorska, M.  Gadocha, Dom, codzienność i święto:  Ceremonie i tradycje rodzinne. Studia historyczno-​antropologiczne, (Kraków: 2018), 51. asr iv, 126–​128. asr iii, 316–​318. Ibid., 490, 498, 500.

122 

Chapter 6

been assigned to the congregation in Beresteczko in Wołyń to assist the town’s minister, Wacław Tito. The young man seduced his supervisor’s daughter, and the matter became public with her pregnancy. The convocation ordered the young couple to marry and Chryzostom to do further penance. He was not barred from the ministry, but it was decided that in the future the elders of any congregation that would call him would be made aware of his behavior. As to Tito, he was “rebuked quite harshly” for “being negligent in attending to his house and negligent in performing his ministerial duties” and threatened with “severe punishments” in the future.34 There is no indication that he was complicit in the affair; his infraction was his ignorance of what went on in his household—​something the Brethren thought was unacceptable for a minister. In 1611, the Lithuanian synod decided that the minister Franciszek Rassius (d. 1624) from Sidra would answer for the fact that his son, Adam, having returned from foreign studies, changed his mind and did not keep his promise to become a pastor. Despite the father’s protestations that he was not responsible for his adult son’s actions, he was ordered to pay back the 300 złotych the Lithuanian church had spent on the young man’s education. Ten years later the son changed his mind again and was ordained a lector in 1624, and a minister in 1625, but by then there was no talk about returning the money his father had to pay in 1611.35 By the 1600s, we see future pastors being carefully prepared and educated for the ministry. Future ministers often first lived with more experienced clergy who helped them not only with preaching, visitation, and most often, school duties but also with learning “godly” habits.36 Stankar the Younger, Krzysztof Kraiński, the Węgierski brothers, Jan Turnowski, Jan Zygrowiusz, and many other Reformed clergy were well known and respected, even by the Catholics, for their piety, education, knowledge, and personal lives. In 1603, when a servant girl accused the Brethren minister Jan Memoratus in Łobżenica of fathering her child, a Catholic priest testified to his innocence, and he was exonerated. In 1640 a similar accusation was levied against Jan Sereniusz Chodowiecki (1610–​1675) in Ostroróg. He too was able to provide testimonies to his character from two of the town’s Catholic priests, who called him “a dear friend.”37 Clergy were expected to follow the prescribed career path: begin as acolyte or catechist for three years (often that time was spent on studies abroad), then 34 35 36 37

Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8, fol. 94. AS 1915, 1–​2, 88, 106. asr iv, 175–​176; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 69. app abc 1152.

The Ministry

123

to be ordained to full ministry—​the Brethren having the additional stage of deacons, before full ministry.38 Ordinations were reserved for seniors or superintendents. The Brethren were the strictest in these matters—​but the other two Churches also adhered to the rules. In 1633, the Lithuanian synod formally rebuked ministers who ordained lectors and catechists for “meddling in superintendents’ business.”39 Ordinations took place during the provincial synods, to stress the fact the ministers were not ordained for specific congregations but rather for the whole Church. The General Synod of 1573 forbade local ordinations, though they must have continued to occur—​as late as in 1613, the Lithuanian Synod repeated the prohibition.40 The formal recognition of a pastor’s transfer from another province was also held at synods.41 Exceptions were rare: in 1630 the Lithuanian synod incorporated its catechist, Samuel Tomaszewski, who was ordained to the ministry by the Reformed consistory in Sedan, France, during his studies there. However, in 1637, the same synod explicitly forbade theology students to seek ordinations abroad and ordered them to come back and be ordained “in the fatherland.”42 In the aftermath of the 1639 anti-​Calvinist riots in Vilnius, the 1640 synod allowed superintendents to ordain candidates to the ministry during district synods—​for safety and expediency sake only, and as an exception.43 Ministers were expected to be good preachers and expositors of sacred texts. Sermons were long by today’s standards, and a pastor was expected to extensively prepare for the two services he preached every Sunday and for the services on Wednesdays and Fridays. The 1626 laws of the Lublin Reformed congregation (reissued in 1636) limited Sunday sermons to one hour, and on ordinary days not longer than half an hour.44 The content was as important as the delivery. Complaints about Łukasz Herlicz (d.c. 1600) included that he was hard to understand and that the congregation would laugh at him during the service. When he could be understood, it was hardly better: “some laughed; some, spitting, would leave the church.”45 In 1637, the Brethren reiterated that ministers were to preach in a way that would “lay [the Gospel] truth in the thoughts and hearts” of the faithful as opposed to “fill the ears with common 38 AS 1915, 42; AS 2015, 165. 39 AS 2011, 103. 40 AS iii, 9; AS 1915, 14. 41 Ibid., 55; AS 2011, 96, 120; AS 2020, 96, 113, 207, 221, 247. 42 AS 2011, 70, 164–​165. 43 AS 2020, 35. 44 buw ser 1175, fol. 2. 45 asr iv, 160.

124 

Chapter 6

oratory.”46 The Lublin Reformed forbade the pastor excessive and cryptic ­oratory. In 1633, the patron Stefan Żychliński complained to the Brethren seniors that his pastor did not prepare enough for the sermons, quoting instead too often “from Plato or some other pagan.”47 Others in that congregation complained that the pastor was aloof and silent enough for people to wonder “if he was [a]‌German.”48 During the 1608 visitation of the Niechłód Brethren congregation, the plebeian faithful remarked about their pastor Wacław Epenet (d. 1630) that they were “content with his serving, though he is not as eloquent as others.” Perhaps, in this case, it was a language problem: the congregation was German-​speaking, and the pastor was not fully fluent. The pastor’s wife plainly said that she “did not want to live in Niechłód or any other place among the Germans.”49 Many ministers were eloquent and were known for good sermons. Jan Musonius (1610–​1665) was held in high esteem by the patrons in Krokowa, Royal Prussia, where he served from 1640 to 1657, and then in Toruń. His preaching must have been memorable indeed because when his son, Jan Musonius (d. 1688), began pastoring the Krokowa congregation in 1673, he reused his father’s sermons. This did not sit well with the patrons, who complained to the Brethren authorities that he “does not study for sermons, but parentis sui concepts squeezes, which the Lord [Krokowski] knows by heart.”50 Musonius was dismissed in 1676 and moved to another congregation—​it is not clear if he preached his own sermons there. Pastors often had to tread a fine line between being the teaching elders of the congregations and deferring to noble lay patrons. Jan Grzybowski (1571–​1641), the Reformed pastor in Lublin was known to be authoritarian with lay elders and deacons, enough for the district synod to intervene in 1608. Nonetheless, he was still chosen as the senior of the Lublin district in 1613 and was from 1624 to 1629 the general superintendent of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church. Based, no doubt, on his pastorate, the 1626 laws of the Lublin congregation carefully delineated the rights of elders, deacons, pastor, and even the churchwarden and almshouse residents. On the other

46 Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8, fol. 102. 47 app abc 1156. 48 Ibid. 1156. 49 asr iv, 377–​379. 50 J. Dworzaczkowa, “Z dziejów zboru w Krokowie w XVII i XVIII wieku,” in Europa-​ Słowiańszczyzna-​ Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego (Poznań: 1970), 533–​542.

The Ministry

125

hand, Jakub Wolfius, who served from 1592 until 1603 the Cracow congregation, while much beloved by his faithful, did not have the energy or talent to rally city’s Calvinists after the last destruction of the church.51 These high standards for ministers, as well as long and arduous training, meant that they were in short supply. By the mid-​seventeenth century, we can already see the development of clerical dynasties in the three provinces that would supply the churches with pastors until the mid-​twentieth century. Cassius, Chodowiecki, Majewski, Musonius, and Orlicz in Greater Poland; Aram, Claudian, Jarzyna, Rzepecki, and Węgierski in Lesser Poland; Bythner, Hazler, Lutomirski, Reczyński, and Stankar in the Grand Duchy soon formed extended clans of related pastoral dynasties who shared a common background, education, and way of life. They led the three Churches for the next 200 years and in some cases, lasted until the 1940s. This pattern did not always work: In 1644, Jan Parlai, son of a deceased minister in the Sandomir district was returned from the Bełżyce gymnasium to his mother with the recommendation that “she gives him to textile cloth, because [he is] ad studia ineptus.”52 However, his younger brother, Stanisław (d. 1663/​1664), did enter the ministry. Ministers’ sons not only followed their fathers, but began to marry ministers’ daughters as well, and in rare cases, their predecessor’s widows: David Wigilantius’ (d. 1634) successor in Weszkowo, Daniel Prüfer (d. 1651), married his widow, Krystyna (d. 1654). Prüfer’s two sons entered the ministry, and his successor in Waszkowo, Daniel Epenet (d. 1688), was married to Barbara Wigilantius, his stepdaughter. Wiligantius’ descendants by blood or marriage served in Weszkowo uninterrupted until the end of the eighteenth century.53 In 1638 the Brethren synod called on ministers “to raise their daughters in such a way so that younger brothers would not have reasons to disdain them. So, when they make inquiries of them, that those inquiries would not be held in disdain.”54 In fact, they even proposed to make a rule that “Levites marry in the Levite generation,” but this was thought too much, even if it became common practice. Ministers’ daughters marrying their fathers’ successors solved another problem: providing for pastors’ widows. They could now live in the parsonages with their sons and sons-​in-​law. After extended debates about providing for widows in some sustainable way, the Lithuanian Reformed brought the matter to 51 52 53 54

buw ser 1175, fol. 2–​4; Szczucki, Jan Grzybowski, PSB, 106–​107; Kronika Zboru, 94–​97. Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 85. app abc 1175, fol. 2; P.  Arndt, “Die reformierten Geistlichen im Stadt-​und Landkreis Thorn 1586–​1921,” Mitteilungen des Coppernicus-​Vereins für Wissenschaft und Kunst zu Thorn H. 47 (1939): 22. app abc 1502, 247.

126 

Chapter 6

conclusion in 1621. They decided that widows and their families could have the right to stay in the parsonage for 12 weeks following the minister’s death. This was amended in 1628, when the synod decided that minister’s widows had the right to receive their late husbands’ salary and stay in the parsonage for one year (with the exception of the Vilnius congregation). This practice spread to the other two Churches and continued in the Lithuanian Church until the nineteenth century. The Brethren began to hold regular collections for ministerial widows beginning in 1640.55 All this effort did not guarantee that ministerial candidates would serve in the body that paid for their education. Some chose to switch to another of the Commonwealth’s Reformed churches, while others served abroad. A good example of this is the progeny of the Cracow senior, Bartłomiej Bythner the Older (c. 1559–​1629). His oldest son, Bartłomiej the Younger (d.c. 1661), served, like his father, the Lesser Poland Reformed Church. His second son, Marcin Bythner (d. c. 1670), was a teacher in Baranów Sandomierski, but moved to the Grand Duchy. After being ordained there in 1631, he served a number of congregations, ending his career as konsenior (1654) and senior (1660) of the Zawieje district. The third son, Zachariasz, studied abroad, but did not enter the ministry. The youngest son, Wiktoryn (c. 1605–​c. 1670), was a Lesser Poland Reformed Church scholarship recipient at Viadrina and Leiden, where he studied under Franciscus Gomarus himself. In 1635 and against the Church’s wishes, Wiktoryn went to England, where he became a tutor in Hebrew at Christ College, Oxford. In 1664, he moved to Cornwall to practice as a doctor, where he died.56 His fourth son, Jan Bythner (1602–​ 1675), had an illustrious clerical career serving in the Brethren Church. He was active during the Włodawa synod, his family connections with all the Commonwealth’s Reformed Churches no doubt being helpful. In 1644 he was elected a Brethren senior. Very instrumental in restoring the Brethren Church after the “Deluge,” he died in Leszno. The Bythners were a ministerial dynasty in Lithuania until 1795.57 The Brethren, whose candidates for ministry were disciplined and well-​ educated, had a high rate of defections to the Reformed congregations in East Prussia and Brandenburg, as well as to the sister churches in Lesser Poland and Lithuania. From the beginning of their presence in Poland to the 55 AS 1915, 62–​63; AS 2011, 90; AS 2020, 258. 56 Pawelec, Bartłomiej Bythner, 92–​93; A. Starke, Wiktoryn Bythner (1605?-​1670?), PSB, vol. 3 (1937), 183–​184. 57 Konarski, Szlachta, 19; Cherner, Słownik, 64–​66; S.  Tworek, Samuel Makowski (koniec XVI-​poł.XVII w.), PSB, vol. 19, (1974), 243–​244; Starke, Jan Bythner, PSB, 182–​183.

The Ministry

127

mid-​seventeenth century, approximately 100 Brethren men transferred to either Lesser Poland or the Grand Duchy as ministers or teachers in Reformed schools. In the same period only five made the reverse transfer: two from Lithuania, three from Lesser Poland. Of these five men, with the sole exception of the senior Jan Bythner, none actually served a Brethren church—​the other four were found to be unsuitable. In Lesser Poland, from 1629 until the middle of the seventeenth century, all superintendents of that Church hailed from the Brethren.58 These transfers from province to province sometimes created tensions, and not just liturgically (Chapter 4). The 1636 Lithuanian synod took notice that Piotr Kochlewski settled a Brethren minister in his church in Nurzec with a biting remark that this was his sixth time.59 The essential problem for ministers in the Crown’s churches was the total dependence of Reformed clergy on the laity. With no separate legal status as Protestant clergy or recognition as clergy by law (as in the Grand Duchy), ministers had to rely on the good-​or ill will of their noble patrons. This lack of stability can explain why so many Brethren ministers were eager to serve in Toruń, where a steady salary could soothe any tender Reformed conscience about having to wear a Lutheran chasuble or cope during worship. In 1634, the Brethren Jakub Gembicki the Younger (d. 1645) resisted being ordained a deacon, comparing the position of ministers to slavery. He relented to his own peril—​he died in abject poverty a decade later. Perhaps with his fate in mind, the young Jan Memoratus (d. 1659) preferred not to serve in Brethren congregations, but was ordained in Königsberg and ministered in a the Lutheran village owned by Toruń.60 The synods of the Crown’s churches are replete with complaints from the clergy about poverty and the conditions in which they served. It is true that in many cases, particularly in the early decades of the Reformation, ministers’ livelihoods were precarious, and standards of living low. But after a vigorous period of building in the early 1600s, ministerial conditions actually improved—​ of course, unless the patrons converted and closed the church. The best conditions were reserved for the seniors and superintendents, and less-​generous provisions were provided for pastors in small rural congregations.

58

59 60

These were:  1629–​1653 Tomasz Węgierski (d. 1653), 1653–​1659 Wojciech Węgierski (d. 1659), 1660–​1667 Daniel Stephanides (d. 1667); Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 65–​75, 141–​153; H.  Gmiterek, “Wymiana duchownych i nauczycieli pomiędzy Kościołem braci czeskich i kalwińskim w Rzeczypospolitej do połowy XVII wieku: z dziejów wzajemnych stosunków,” Rocznik Lubelski 23–​24 (1981–​1982): 47–​64. AS 2011, 158. Arndt, “Die reformierten,” 21–​22; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 150;.

128 

Chapter 6

Many clergy complaints should be taken with a grain of salt, though. Jan Rybiński (d. 1638), the Brethren senior living in Ostroróg, claimed pathetically: “I live, sadly, between cattle. I would wish to live among humans.”61 At the same time, we know that the parsonage in that town was built of stone, had three rooms, a stone cellar, a library, a separate servants’ quarters with a kitchen, stables, an orchard, and a vegetable garden. He probably wanted to leave the provincial town Ostroróg for the bigger Leszno, the province’s second-​largest city.62 The congregation there had separate parsonages for the German-​and the Polish-​language preachers. The Leszno congregation was wealthy enough to support their pastors even after 1645, when the convert Bogusław Leszczyński refused to pay their salaries.63 Similarly, in Baranów Sandomierski, the parsonage and provisions for the pastor (and superintendent) were generous. In the Grand Duchy, where many congregations became endowed with villages and estates, some pastors found it more to their liking to live in the manor houses and not the parsonages. It became such a problem, that the 1636 synod had to intervene and ordered those clergy to move back to the parsonages.64 Among ordinary ministers there was some degree of variation among congregations. In Karmino and Orzeszkowo, the parsonages were new and quite large—​as one historian pointed out, “not much worse than many noblemen’s manor houses, and the undoubted similarity of the two dwellings shows that that was considered as appropriate for a congregation’s shepherd.”65 Once the brutish and stingy Stefan Żychliński died (Chapter 9), his heirs settled and provided generously for a pastor in Żychlin. In Sieczków, Lesser Poland, the living conditions of the pastor were so bad and his salary so much in arrears that in 1630, the synod moved him to another congregation and rebuked the patroness. A year later, she promised to build a parsonage with a barn, and by 1632, they were standing together with a renovated church.66 There were of course extreme cases. In Chobienice, the pastor was housed in a former peasant’s hut. In Mielęcin, the wealthy but cheap patron Samuel Mielęcki had the minister live in a shepherd’s hut before he built a parsonage. Jakub Gembicki (d. 1645) died in Skoki in poverty after the patron fell behind for years on his salary and the burghers were too few or too poor to support him on their own.67 61 Ibid., 130–​131. 62 H. Gmiterek, Jan Rybiński (1595–​1638), PSB, vol. 33 (1993), 331–​332. 63 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 134–​135. 64 AS 2011, 153–​154. 65 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 141. 66 asr iii, 542, 560–​561. 67 app abc 1546; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 141.

The Ministry

129

Grumbling about the conditions by the ministers was not always effective, but it did work under the right circumstances. During the 1608 visitation in Niechłód, the minister complained about the lack of a suitable dwelling for himself and his family. The plebeian members of the congregation agreed with him in principle and offered to help build something better but would not commit to anything before the noble patrons promised to cover some of the costs. In Lesser Poland in the 1620s and 1630s, church interventions with the noble patrons to supplement ministers’ salaries or improve their living conditions were generally effective.68 The most notorious case relating to the matter of clerical poverty came in 1640. Paweł Orlicz (1599–​1649) was a Brethren konsenior serving, tellingly, in Toruń. For years he advised young ministers to seek better living conditions in the Grand Duchy, or even in Ducal Prussia, rather than serve in Lesser or Greater Poland. This did not win him many friends in those two Churches. He finally got into serious trouble after pointing out the weak legal and financial conditions of pastors in the Crown to Samuel Keszner (1613–​1678) and Andrzej Węgierski, two of his Brethren clergy friends serving in Lesser Poland.69 The latter imprudently leaked Orlicz’s letters to some noble patrons. Naturally, they were furious and demanded from the Brethren “no small punishment”—​namely, that he be defrocked. The Brethren ordered Orlicz to present his claims in writing during their 1640 synod in Skoki. Thus, he wrote “Dowodne pokazanie czym Kościół Boży podupadły w Koronie, mógłby wsparty i poratowany być” (An evidenced display how God’s Church, declined in the Crown, could be supported and aided).70 This is a vivid, if exaggerated, account of the poverty and lack of legal status and protection of ministers in the Crown. Orlicz knew that he had been too bold, and wisely did not appear personally at the 1640 synod; he sent the script through a colleague instead. The Brethren synod gave an ambiguous judgment. It held that “Brother Paul in his affections and writing got carried away,”71 but ruled that the text itself was not serious enough to warrant the defrocking of a minister. While asking the Lesser Poland superintendent Tomasz Węgierski

68 69 70 71

asr iii; Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 397–​429. S. Tworek, Samuel Keszner (1613–​1678), PSB, vol. 12 (1966/​1967), 355; W.  Urban, “Andrzej Węgierski (1600–​1649) jako kaznodzieja włodawski i jego związki z Czechami,” OiRwP 47 (2003): 173–​175. app abc 1504; S.  Cynarski, “Rzecz o mizerii ministrowskiej w latach 30 XVII wieku,” OiRwP 4 (1959): 187–​208; J. Dworzaczkowa, “W sprawie autorstwa pisma o „mizerii” ministrowskiej,” OiRwP 14 (1969): 195–​198. Dworzaczkowa, “W sprawie autorstwa,” 196.

130 

Chapter 6

to smooth things over with the noble patrons, the synod added regarding Orlicz: “And since it is plain that in this manner that he uses more can be destroyed rather than fixed, by the present synod’s authoritate he was ordered imponere silentium, with the rebuke, that because he is a konsenior of the Brethren in Poland, he should build up this Brethren, and not break [up].”72 But most pastors in all three Churches lived lives that were scandal-​free and dutifully served their flocks. In 1649, the Oksa pastor Jan Laetus (1609–​c. 1659) wrote the funeral sermon for his brother, Jerzy Laetus (1604–​1649), the konsenior of the Lublin district. In it, he summed up not just his brother’s short life but all that made him a faithful Reformed pastor: pious religious upbringing received at home, solid theological education (Franeker, Leiden, Sedan), diligence in studies (he wrote a number of biblical commentaries), dedication in pastoral work (Tychoml, Lachowicze, Kock), and love for his wife and children. Despite the vicissitudes in his life—​born in Bohemia, he became a refugee in 1620 and died also a refugee fleeing the Chmielnicki Cossacks who destroyed his home and beloved library—​Jerzy Laetus was steadfast and faithful to God. Even on his deathbed he remained a pastor and Reformed Christian: “he prayed fervently, bid his wife and little children good-​bye” and even roused the faith of his patroness.73 The humble tone of the sermon suggests that he was seen as one whose life showed that the standards set up for the Reformed ministry were in fact, attainable, even in difficult circumstances. By the mid-​seventeenth century, Calvinist clergy in the Commonwealth had developed their own identity, career paths, and self-​awareness as a social group. The attention all three synods paid to them showed that the Commonwealth’s Reformed saw a learned ministry as an integral part of their Church’s identity. 72 Ibid., 196. 73 M. i M. Skwarowie, Życie i twórczość Jerzego Laetusa Weselskiego. Przyczynek do dziejów braci czeskich na tle związków Polski i Niderlandów w XVII wieku wraz z tekstem kazania pogrzebowego (Szczecin: 2004), lxii.

­c hapter 7

Patterns of Piety In his introduction to a genealogical work about his mother’s family in the 1960s, Szymon Konarski (1894–​1980) posed two questions: whether the Commonwealth’s Reformed had differed in any way from their Roman Catholic neighbors, and whether that difference was positive. Konarski would know, like few others. His father’s family was Reformed until his grandfather married a Roman Catholic and raised all his children in their mother’s faith. Konarski’s mother, Oktawia Świda (1865–​1913), was a lifelong Calvinist, but she too agreed to raise all her children as Roman Catholics. For nine generations, Konarski’s ancestors on both sides had played important roles in the Lesser Poland and Lithuanian Reformed Churches. Konarski answered his own questions, asserting that his Calvinist ancestors indeed differed from their Catholic peers in the character traits they shared: “directness, the lack of any diplomacy, and finally puritanism, sometimes taking the form of fanaticism.”1 Needless to say, he found them to be negative. Other historians have disagreed and claimed that there was no substantial difference between the Reformed and their Catholic peers.2 Having converted to the Protestant movement in mid-​sixteenth century, the Protestant faithful soon found themselves required to develop new church structures, new worship patterns, and, importantly, new forms of piety. The Commonwealth’s Protestants were thrust into the inter-​Protestant struggle among Lutherans, Calvinists, and Unitarians. Although bereft of royal patronage and under increasing pressure from the Counterreformation, the Reformed established new patterns of piety and devotion, many of which endured until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For the first two generations of Protestants (1555–​1595), the sources are limited and, as a result, we must reconstruct emerging patterns from those available. The new Protestants set out first to convert their families and, in the case of nobles, their servants and servants’ families as well. By the end of the sixteenth century, Calvinist nobles surrounded themselves with Calvinist servants. Prayers were led by the household master in the morning and evening: “before supper they always have prayers for the servants, before they even 1 S. Konarski, Świdowie herbu Grabie odmienne, (Paryż: 1966), 3–​4. 2 J. Tazbir, “Społeczeństwo wobec reformacji,” in: Polska w epoce Odrodzenia (Warszawa: 1986), 206–​207.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_008

132 

Chapter 7

attend to beasts or other work.”3 Those more versed in theology likely would also instruct household members in religious teachings. Tellingly, the first hymnals for the new churches included a short catechism—​it was known as the “What Are You?” (Coś ty?) or “Smaller Catechism” (Mały Katechizm). This catechism discussed the basic tenants of Protestant Christianity in twenty simple questions and answers, which, while Reformed in tone (particularly concerning the Lord’s Supper), were broad and accessible enough for a wider audience. As Margita Korzo has persuasively argued, the original 1558 edition was a Polish reworking of a Czech Brethren manuscript. After its first edition with the Brześć Kancjonał in 1558, it was reissued many times, undergoing substantive revision after the Unitarianism schism, most notably by Krzysztof Kraiński in 1596. The Coś ty? with Kraiński’s revision continued to be published until 1815, shaping generations of the Commonwealth’s Calvinists.4 For the Reformed, the new Church attempted to exert social and moral control on its members and those under its charge. The pious Jakub Ostroróg issued special laws forbidding his subjects to engage in “vanities, drunkenness, usury, beggary, cursing, arguments, dancing, adultery, murder, and other sins.”5 In 1583, the Lithuanian Grand Chancellor Ostafi Wołłowicz (d. 1587)  issued similar provisions to his subjects in Nowe Miasto forbidding them to engage in “idolatry, magic, consulting sorcerers, excessive drinking, adultery, and other evildoing.”6 In the Grand Duchy as late as 1637 the synod called on the Calvinist faithful to lead their subjects into “piety,” remarking that “in vain labors the dignitary [minister] if the authorities have no care for religion” and reminding the nobles that “like parents for their children, so will lords have to account to God for their serfs on the Day of Judgment.”7 The synods reminded the patrons repeatedly (1615, 1626, and 1637) to forbid the building of new Eastern Orthodox churches on their estates or the restoration of existing ones, hoping to convert the Eastern Orthodox peasants of the Calvinist nobles.8 These canons were universally ignored: the Calvinist Radziwiłłs maintained Słuck as center 3 W. Urban, Chłopi wobec Reformacji w Małopolsce w drugiej połowie XVI w., (Kraków: 1959), 133. 4 M. Korzo, “W sprawie jednego z XVI wiecznych katechizmów kalwińskich w Rzeczpospolitej,” OiRwP 51 (2007): 178–​180; I. Winiarska-​Górska, “Staropolskie ewangelickie katechizmy i kancjonały jako książki formacyjne,” in ed. D.  Chemperek, Ewangelicyzm reformowany w Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej: dialog z Europą i wybory aksjologiczne w świetle literatury i piśmiennictwa XVI-​XVII wieku (Warszawa: 2015), 133–​169. 5 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 63. 6 mrpl, vol. 1 (1911), 94. 7 AS 2011, 163. 8 AS 1915, 29; AS 2011, 4, 163.

Patterns of Piety

133

of Eastern Orthodoxy; just few months after the 1637 synod’s prohibitions, the devoutly Calvinist Władysław Dorohostajski (1611–​1638) confirmed to his Eastern Orthodox subjects in Nepele their freedom of worship in that manor’s church and pledged to enter that into the local registers to ensure its legally binding status.9 The three Reformed Churches waged a valiant, but ultimately futile, battle with dancing and drinking. Dances were condemned by their 1583 provincial synod in Wodzisław.10 In 1595, Toruń General Synod soundly forbade all dancing and, despite objections, rejected any distinction between decent and indecent dancing. The Lithuanian Reformed conceded this battle first: their synodal records are completely silent on the matter. Lesser Poland continued to press on a bit longer. But in 1597, the district synod in Secemin ruled that only “licentious” dances were to be punished, “especially on those persons who were praeire bonis exemplis,”11 which suggests that the prohibition extended only to clergy and possibly lay elders. In 1607, when the minister Mikołaj Dasyp was defrocked, one of the infractions named was dancing, but it was mentioned casually, given the impressive list of other sins he committed. Kraiński raged against dancing in his “Postylla” but was widely ignored. The Calvinist minister Jakub Zaborowski answered the accusation made by Polish Brethren of Calvinists not applying church discipline against members who dance, by saying that neither do the Unitarians censure for it. This was a tacit admission that the war had been lost. The last outburst of the Lesser Poland’s zeal against dancing came during the Sandomir district synod in 1623, when dancing was listed with drinking as an infraction that could trigger church discipline. There is no evidence that this ever happened.12 After the 1600s, the Brethren in Greater Poland alone soldiered on to fight the sin of dancing. Ministers who turned a blind eye, like Paweł Orlicz in 1598, were admonished. The minister Jakub Wolfagius (d. 1634), who dared to dance with his noble patroness in 1608 was suspended. In 1652, sensing their war on dancing was lost, the Brethren made the decision that weddings would not be held on communion Sundays so as not to profane the sacrament with it. An amusing aside alleges that the lifelong enmity between King Jan ii Kazimierz Waza and the Calvinist Duke Janusz ii Radziwiłł (1612–​1655) had its roots in their competitiveness: the latter showed himself to be a better dancer than the 9 Archeograficzefski Sbornik, vol 11. (1890): 15–​17. 10 asr iii, 11, 82–​83. 11 Ibid., 188. 12 Ibid., 451, 609–​610; J.  Jelińska, “Sarmacki” wizerunek szlachcica-​ewangelika w Postylli Krzysztofa Kraińskiego (Warszawa: 1995), 43; Cztery Broszury, 98–​99.

134 

Chapter 7

future king. Where Radziwiłł learned to dance is not clear—​his father’s careful instructions on his education never mentioned proficiency in that area.13 The Brethren also attempted to limit the serfs’ consumption of alcohol on the faithful’s estates, but that, too, met with little success. In 1632, the Brethren seniors reminded Jan Jerzy Szlichtyng (1597–​1658), the administrator of Leszno, to enforce their moral regulation on dancing and drinking but, while an otherwise faithful son of the Church, this time he ignored them. When in 1637 the seniors pled with the nobles not to offer beer and to forbid dancing in the inns on the estates, the nobles answered curtly: “The peasants, when they come together for a beer, [are] like cattle, [and] will not desist from their customs. If the landlord does not allow it in his inn, they will go elsewhere.”14 The Lithuanian Ostafi Wołłowicz, perhaps wisely, tried to curb only “excessive drinking” among his subjects in Nowe Miasto.15 Drinking and alcoholism was not confined to the lower classes: the “Pope of Calvinists,” Rafał Leszczyński, was known to enjoy the bottle, as did Duke Janusz ii Radziwiłł, whose drinking companion was none other than King Władysław iv Waza himself. In 1650, the severe alcohol abuse by a Calvinist nobleman, Wolan, so scandalized the Unitarian minister Jan Stoiński (d. 1654) that he was inspired to compose a series of poems Pieśni Mięsopustne in which he chastised the Catholic and Reformed for their hypocritical behavior during Lent.16 Almshouse residents, despite being under the watch of the Reformed Church, had a reputation for drinking. Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł left considerable amount of money to almshouses with a caveat that it be given to the “genuinely poor and not some drunks.”17 In Lesser Poland, the single explicit mention of the Reformed Church trying to limit the consumption of alcohol by the serfs comes from the 1582 visitation of the Lublin district, where the patrons in Żółkiew promised to limit access to alcohol on Sunday—​and to consume less themselves.18 The Reformed burgher from Zamość, Jan Golliusz (1634–​1694), noted in his diary that the 1653 Easter celebrations after attending

13

app abc 1514; asr iv, 377, 379; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 88–​89, 153; H. Wisner, Janusz Radziwiłł 1612–​1655. Wojewoda wileński, hetman wielki litewski, (Warszawa: 2000), 78; Zachara, Majewska-​Lancholc, “Instrukcja Krzysztofa II Radziwiłła dla syna Janusza,” OiRwP 16 (1971): 171–​184. 14 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 155. 15 mrpl, vol. 1 (1911), 94. 16 M. Barłowska, ““Pieśni mięsopustne” Jana Stoińskiego—​powrót,” OiRwP 60 (2016): 25. 17 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 230. 18 asr iii, 61; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 88–​89, 155.

Patterns of Piety

135

the church service involved “heads heavily weight by hop [beer] (…) all day until the night” which, naturally, led to dancing.19 The question of the Calvinist Church’s influence on the plight of the serfs has been debated for many years. In 1573, the Cracow General Synod set a limit on the number of days the serfs were to work for free at their lord’s fields at a maximum of three per week. Normally these provisions were not observed; however, there were instances where the peasants could successfully petition the church authorities for help with their masters. Between 1631 and 1638, the Sandomir district successfully pressured Andrzej Firlej (d. 1660), the owner of Wojcza, not to impose additional burdens on his serfs. In 1644, the Chęciny district synod decided in favor of the peasants from the village of Kozy who appeared at the synod to protest the heavy-​handed Calvinist village administrator Michał Kałaj. The district synod ordered the minister there to chastise Michał Kałaj “so that he sibi tempereret from such deeds that do not have the odor of the Gospel.”20 These were cases of Calvinist serfs seeking recourse against their Calvinist lords with their common church authorities. There were also cases when the Reformed Church pled the case of Catholic serfs against their Calvinist masters, such as the killing of a serf in Sieczków in 1629 in Lesser Poland.21 That same year, the Lithuanian synod ordered that Superintendent Jan Drzewiecki look into any claims by the serfs in Rossienie against their minister and have them “justly settled.”22 In 1614, Leszno city’s council summoned the church elders to city hall and explicitly forbade them to settle any disagreements between Brethren faithful “because by that they make the commoners haughty.”23 Instead, the elders were reminded that they should send them to the city’s mayor. At least for some of the burghers, church elders were seen as an alternative to the established judicial system for settling disputes. Just how difficult it was for a church dependent on noble protection and support to navigate the landlord-​serf dynamic can be seen in the case of Stefan Żychliński (d. 1642) from Greater Poland. He inherited the Brethren church at his family seat in Żychlin but was a tepid church member. In 1633, after his child’s wet nurse fled his household, he had her apprehended and put in chains. The Brethren minister defended her, accusing the patron of cruelty. Żychliński was 19

Pamiętnik Jana Golliusza, mieszczanina polskiego (1650–​1653), wyd. J.  Kallenbach, Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce, vii (1892): 93. 20 Wajsblum, Ex regestro, 10–​11. 21 asr iii, 527. 22 AS 2011, 50. 23 asr iv, 386.

136 

Chapter 7

not impressed: “That villain [woman], whom after the customary law I wanted to punish and ordered chained, he [the minister] then descended on me calling ‘This is a Tatar way, and not the way it should be, mercy is needed,’ ” he wrote to the Brethren senior, genuinely annoyed, insulted and seeking understanding against the soft-​hearted minister.24 The pastor was moved to another congregation, which only emboldened the nobleman. A decade later in 1641, Żychliński captured some runaway serfs and ordered their noses hacked off, forcing a father to perform the terrible deed on his daughter. The minister was appalled, and the Brethren intervened. Cautiously, and with hopes of avoiding a scandal, they condemned Żychliński’s cruelty and ordered the minister to remind the patron “that God gave him subjects whose injuries he [God] can avenge.”25 Żychliński was barred from communion until he had performed public penance. The nobleman received the letter coldly, expressed a vague remorse, and admitted that it was wrong of him to force the father to mutilate his own daughter but not to order it in principle. No public penance was forthcoming, and shortly thereafter Żychliński expelled the Brethren minister and began to search for a Lutheran replacement. He died before he could act further, and the church remained with the Brethren. Again, while not able to restrain the excess of a sadistic patron, the Reformed Church could act as a defender of both Protestant and Catholic serfs.26 The Reformed in the Commonwealth had a very cautious approach to accusations of witchcraft. There are only a handful of cases and all are from the Crown. In 1567, Jakub Ostroróg had a woman arrested for witchcraft in Poznań. But she died in prison before the case was adjudicated. This restraint can be seen from the proceedings of the 1590 convocation in Poznań. When contacted by a noblewoman who thought she was a victim of witchcraft, the Brethren seniors responded curtly: “1) Call [her] to trust [in God]; 2) pray with fasting; 3) take herbs [medication]; 4) secure a preacher.”27 When in 1605 the city councilors in Ostroróg arrested two women accusing each other of witchcraft, Symeon Teofil Turnowski, the senior and local pastor, pleaded with the town’s owner and secured their release. In 1627, after Krystyna Poniatowska (1610–​1644), a ward of Jan Amos Komensky, began to experience religious visions and prophesize, rumors of witchcraft spread in the community. The seniors maintained distance, despite pressure from the patron Leszczyński, hoping that this matter would disappear: “In God 24 app abc 1156. 25 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 154. 26 app abc 2475; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 153–​154. 27 asr iv, 106.

Patterns of Piety

137

and in time confiding, wait for the event [prophecy to be fulfilled].”28 Tellingly, during her examination by doctors and clergy, called by Leszczyński on April 18, 1628, the majority of doctors and laypeople judged the visions to be caused by mental illness—​the Brethren clergy present divided equally between supporters and skeptics.29 In 1598, Andrzej Męciński (d.c. 1603), the Calvinist owner of Bełżyce in Lesser Poland, issued a mandate threatening any burgher found guilty of witchcraft with death. However, as the historian who had access to town’s records noted, there were only three cases of witchcraft—​all in the years 1598–​1600—​and all of which were dismissed. The sources did not mention the religious persuasion of the judges or the accused and, allowing for the religious diversity of Bełżyce at the time, they could have belonged to any or none of the Protestant churches in town.30 During the 1649 case of devil haunting in the Reformed private town of Oksa in Lesser Poland, the province’s superintendent advised the town’s minister and faithful to persevere in prayer and fasting, rather than give in to the hysteria. They followed the advice and the “devil left.”31 One of the major differences in the daily lives of the Commonwealth Protestants and their Roman Catholic neighbors was the former appreciation of schools and books, not just as means of teaching the faithful how to read the Bible, but also as means of conversion. Despite daunting odds, Reformed synods from the very beginning strived to establish a Polish Protestant university, first in Pińczów, and then in a number of other locations. These efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, but the Calvinists were successful in establishing a network of schools, even in smaller congregations. Many converted nobles in the 1550s and 1560s took the bulk of the ecclesiastical endowments for themselves and, despite the synod’s pleas, did not allot them to their new churches. However, some did: during the 1561 synod, Jan Bonar (d. 1562), the castellan of Biecz, offered the synod the 500 zlotych he seized from the Catholic Church’s property for a school for the new church and promised to house the teachers at his cost. In Secemin, the devout Calvinist Stanisław Szafraniec used former church property to establish a school where the education was free for the town’s children. That school was a major

28 29 30 31

Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8, fol. 48–​49. asr iv, 188, 313–​314; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 88–​90; Dariusz Rott, Bracia Czescy w dawnej Polsce (Katowice: 2002), 62–​67. S. Klarner, “Sprawy o czary w urzędach Bełżyckich w wiekach XVI-​XVIII. Z aktów urzędów radzieckiego i wójtowskiego miasta Bełżyc,” Wisła 16 (3-​1902): 467–​469; W. Dworzaczek, Andrzej Męciński (zm.ok.1603), PSB, vol. 20 (1975), 493. Wengersch, Libri, 130–​133.

138 

Chapter 7

factor in converting the town’s populace to Calvinism. As the visitation records from the Lublin Reformed district show, in many cases the pastor was charged with teaching the serf children and adults and, in some cases, pious patrons were themselves teachers.32 Ostafi Wołłowicz (d. 1587), on his estates of Nowe Miasto and Sidra in the Grand Duchy, established not just churches but also schools—​in Nowe Miasto going as far as making education for all boys between the ages of 8 and 15 compulsory. These young boys were to then teach the elderly what they learned, making the Reformed school an instrument in Calvinizing the entire town.33 The Commonwealth’s Protestants eagerly went to study abroad at Protestant universities. In the first generation of Protestants (1550s–​1570s), Lutheran universities were the most popular destinations for learning:  Wittenberg (until the mid-​1560s), Leipzig (until the 1570s), and Basel. The latter, with its broad Reformed Protestantism, and communion practices that resembled the Brethren, remained popular until the close of the sixteenth century.34 Post-​ 1595, as the three Reformed Churches took on an increasingly Calvinist flavor, Wittenberg and Leipzig faded in popularity. Students continued to study in Basel; however, the Reformed students now flocked in larger numbers to study at Heidelberg, Strasbourg, Leiden, and Geneva.35 The first two generations of Protestants in the Commonwealth showed a great interest in books—​though it is not clear if their love of books was a fruit of their Protestantism or the other way round. Jan Łaski bought Erasmus of Rotterdam’s personal library, and other Reformed nobles and burghers were known to possess considerable libraries, with books in Latin, Greek, German, French, and even English. Zbigniew Słupecki (d. 1594) had an extensive theological library, including a collection of anti-​Jesuit material, which included French and German titles. Melchior Krupka Przecławski (d.c. 1595), a nobleman living in Cracow, also owned one.36 The Calvinist burgher family of Barian-​Rokicki from Biecz in Lesser Poland expanded their library over two generations, until it included eighty-​one volumes, including many Protestant theological treaties. Another Protestant burgher from Biecz, Stanisław 32 33 34

asr ii, 117; Tworek, Działalność, 67–​90. mrpl, vol. 1 (1911), 93–​95. Basel used communion wafers until 1642, a fact overlooked by Polish historians, but which would explain its popularity with the Brethren. Burnett, Teaching, 242–​243. 35 Tworek, Działalność, 91–​93, 161–​163. Basel, which initially was in the theological middle between Zwingli and Luther, post 1570 became increasingly Reformed, which would explain why it continued to be popular, while the Commonwealth’s Protestants became more Calvinist, Burnett, Teaching, 29–​35. 36 A. Lewicka-​Kamińska, Melchior Krupka (ok.1490–​1582), PSB, vol. 15 (1970), 414–​415.

Patterns of Piety

139

Sternberg (d.c. 1603), left a library of over 315 volumes. The Calvinist family of Podlodowski and patrons of the church in Bogdanów acquired an extensive library that they kept and expanded over three generations.37 Reformed worship was the most visible form of piety. Many church historians (not only in Poland) have stressed the radical break the Reformation brought to worshipping communities, particularly the stripping of altars, destruction of art, etc. Many saw the acts of iconoclasm as either anti-​Catholic violence or expressions of anticlericalism and hatred for the old church—​but seldom as acts piety. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. No doubt there were acts of hatred and violence towards the old church, its teachings, and worship. But violence and destruction notwithstanding, there were also acts of newfound piety to be found in the radicalism.38 Consider the case of the church in the village of Wielogłowy, in the Sącz area, south of Cracow in Lesser Poland. In 1557, the two local noble patrons, together with its Catholic priest, transformed it into a Reformed congregation. The altar and paraments were removed and the walls whitewashed. The patrons and now-​Protestant pastor painted on them the Polish text of the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the following inscription: “In the year of the Lord 1557 by the grace of the good God, this church was removed from Roman obedience [there followed some words that were illegible in 1608] from the Lord God restored under the reign of the here born Sebastian Wielogłowski.”39 It is clear from the inscription that the iconoclasm was motivated by religious sentiment, perhaps deeper and more grounded in scripture than we would recognize at first glance. These three Polish Calvinists showed remarkable Reformed theological acumen by placing the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer on the walls—​something that the Reformed churches would later be known for.

37

38 39

H. Barycz, Mikołaj Dłuski, PSB, vol. 5 (1939–​1946), 195–​197; M. Czapnik, “Księgozbiór Krzysztoporskich. Z dziejów renesansowych bibliotek szlacheckich,” in Kolekcje Historyczne. Kolekcje Historyczne XVI-​XVII wieku, vol. ii, (Warszawa:  2009):  152–​215; Gmiterek, Zbigniew Słupecki, PSB, 119–​120; Tomaszewicz, Konrad Krupka-​Przecławski, PSB, 413–​414; W.  Urban, “Reformacja mieszczańska w dawnym powiecie bieckim,” OiRwP 6 (1961): 152–​155; W. Kriegseisen, “Książka i biblioteki w kulturze ewangelików polskich w XVII i XVIII w.,” in ed. B. Bieńkowska, Z badań nad polskimi księgozbiorami historycznymi, t.  13:  Kolekcje wyznaniowe, (Warszawa:  1992); W.  Kowalski, “Krakowski drukarz Stanisław Murmelius i jego księgozbiór (1571),” OiRwP 62 (2018): 5–​45. S. C. Karant-​Nunn, “The Reformation of Liturgy” in ed. U. Rublack, The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations (Oxford: 2017), 418-​419. W. Urban, “Reformacja w życiu wsi małopolskiej,” in Et Haec Facienda, et illa non omittenda. Profesor Wacław Urban w swoich dziełach wybranych, (Warszawa: 2012), 31.

140 

Chapter 7

Church reform was not always violent and abrupt. The Czech Brethren waited before removing altars and statues, often working slowly on converting the population before the church was fully adjusted for their worship. And, even then, old religious objects were not destroyed but instead were put away. In 1645, when the Brethren returned the church in Skoki to the Catholics after eighty years, they handed over old, rotting chasubles, as well as three side altars. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where there were few Roman Catholic churches before 1550s, the Calvinists often built new buildings for their own worship. The same was the case in the Crown’s royal towns, where Reformed churches were established in noble residences within city walls, and not in Catholic edifices repurposed for Reformed worship. As we will see in Chapter 10, Lutheran liturgical changes were very conservative in the Royal Prussian cities and, when the Reformed appeared there, they generally proceeded with care so as not to upset the local liturgical practices. In Gdańsk, where such restraint was not shown, the results were anti-​Calvinist riots by a Lutheran mob. Paradoxically, the Reformed had the largest opportunities for structural change in the rural, private estates of nobles in the Crown, where they were only restrained by their own wisdom and tact. While some changes were dramatic, the Reformation was most successful where the local patrons proceeded cautiously, carefully, and patiently. Church visitations from the early 1600s demonstrate that some vestiges of Catholic ritual or furnishings were still present. Thus, where the Calvinists managed to maintain their presence for at least two generations, their patterns and behaviors followed many similar processes of gradual Protestantization in Western Europe. A marked difference in Reformed piety occurred in the third generation—​from 1595 onwards. The Sandomir Consensus committed the Commonwealth’s Protestants to Trinitarianism. The Toruń 1595 General Synod and Sandomir Confession cemented their commitment to be Reformed Protestants. All three Churches embarked on a vigorous campaign of restructuring liturgically, organizationally, and socially. This was the Commonwealth’s version of a Second Reformation. Part of this change can be attributed to the fruits of the previous educational endeavors of the Reformed. Despite the lack of success in establishing a Protestant university in Lesser Poland, smaller schools functioned in Lewartów (until 1598), Kryłów (1567–​1612), Paniowce (c. 1595–​1611), Opole Lubelskie (1600–​1616), Kock (until c. 1660), Oksa (until 1660), Krasnobród (until the 1650s), Biłgoraj (until c. 1660), Ożarów (until the 1630s), Baranów Sandomierski (until 1651), Beresteczko (until 1648), and Chmielnik (until 1691).40 In 1615, 40 Tworek, Działalność, 245–​310.

Patterns of Piety

141

Lesser Poland Reformed Church finally established a provincial school (gymnasium) in Bełżyce, which existed until 1660.41 In Greater Poland the gymnasium in Koźminek initially functioned as the main school for the denomination, later aided to some degree by the school in Łobżenica. When Koźminek was sold to a Catholic and the church and gymnasium closed in 1614, the Brethren relied on the Toruń Gymnasium, where the presence of Brethren ministers and professors guaranteed its Reformed character.42 Leszno and its school (dating back to the 1550s) reached the rank of a gymnasium only after Rafał ii Leszczyński (1579–​1636) endowed it handsomely in 1626 and hired Jan Amos Komensky. It flourished in the 1630s and 1640s, sometimes being called “New Athens,” and it educated children of the Brethren faithful, both nobles and burghers, as well as sons of Catholic nobility from the area. The Leszno Gymnasium existed in addition to the primary schools of the Lutheran and the Reformed in the town, where from at least the 1630s, girls as well as boys were educated in reading and writing.43 In the Grand Duchy, the main Calvinist gymnasia were in Kiejdany, Słuck (established in 1625), and after the 1634 General Convocation of Włodawa, also in Zabłudów. The latter was intended as the main gymnasium for the three Calvinist provinces, but the “Deluge” thwarted those plans. While these Reformed schools have not always been kindly judged by some historians (as opposed to the Unitarian Raków Academy), they employed graduates of Western European universities and not only provided the youth with a solid education, but also grounded them in Reformed piety. Finally, on top of the official gymnasia of the three Reformed provinces, the two formally Lutheran gymnasia in Gdańsk and Toruń were, up until at least the mid-​seventeenth century, run by Calvinists and educated scores of Reformed sons of nobles and burghers.44 The Reformed Churches’ stress on education had the effect that many of the graduates of the Commonwealth’s schools went on to study at Calvinist universities abroad. Post-​1595, we see Commonwealth’s citizens studying at Calvinist 41 42

Ibid., 165–​249. Apart from the staff, the dorms for the students were administered 1630–​1652 by a Czech immigrant, Adam Hartmann, whose son later became a Brethren minister. J.  Dworzaczkowa, “Zbór i szkoła braci czeskich w Koźminku ok. 1554–​1614,” Rocznik Kaliski 18 (1985): 60–​65; idem, Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce, 80–​81, 146–​147. 43 Ibid., 156–​159; K.  Szymańska, “Książka w życiu leszczyńskich mieszczan w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku,” in ed. P.  Klint, M.  Małkus, K.  Szymańska, Ziemia wschowska w czasach starosty Hieronima Radomickiego (Wschowa-​Leszno:  2009), 413; S.  Tworek, “Programy nauczania i prawa gimnazjum kalwińskiego w Kiejdanach z lat 1629 i 1685,” OiRwP 15 (1970): 223–​236. 44 Tworek, Działalność, 159–​161, 304–​305.

142 

Chapter 7

centers such as Frankfurt an der Oder, Heidelberg (from the 1590s), Leiden (after 1597), Saumur (after 1605), and Franeker (after 1600). The latter’s popularity with the Commonwealth’s Calvinists stemmed from the fact that two of its famous theology professors, Johann Maccovius (1588–​1644) and Nicolaus Arnoldi (1618–​1680), came from Lesser and Greater Poland, respectively. They maintained close ties with their motherland and served as mentors to young students from the Commonwealth who studied there. In Leiden, the number of Polish-​speaking Reformed students in the mid-​1630s was so large that Jerzy Laetus (1604–​1649) allegedly preached to them in Polish while studying there in 1636.45 These international contacts meant that the Commonwealth’s Reformed stayed abreast of the political developments of their western brethren. This is clearly evident by the financial aid the three Reformed Churches provided to Calvinist victims of religious persecution. Brethren refugees from Bohemia post-​1618 were resettled in Greater Poland (Skoki), Lesser Poland (Baranów Sandomierski), and Lithuania (Włodawa). Aid was not limited to them:  the three churches generously supported refugees from the Upper Palatine (1632), Heidelberg (1637), and Anhalt (1640) by sending them money collected before communion services, when the attendance (and generosity) was higher.46 The exposure to Western Europe’s Calvinist teaching and church institutions naturally influenced the churches within the Commonwealth. We have seen how the post-​1600 generation of Brethren ministers turned the Church in a decidedly Reformed direction. Many pastors and lay people came back to their homeland with worship and piety practices influenced by those of their sisters and brothers in the Calvinist Netherlands and Palatine, and by the ­Huguenots. The first sign we see—​particularly in the third generation of the Commonwealth’s Reformed—​is the further proliferation of private libraries and a passion for books. This was expressed in the sermon that Komensky gave in 1650, when he said:  “Who wishes to possess knowledge has to value books more than gold and precious stones, not part with them during day or night.”47 In Greater Poland, the senior’s residence in Ostroróg already had a library in the 1560s. It was considered a central library for the Church, and its holdings were 45

46 47

Ibid., 162–​164, 306–​309; idem, Samuel Makowski (koniec XVI-​poł.XVII w.), PSB, vol. 19, (1974), 243–​244; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce, 150; Stefan Kiedroń, “Jan Makowski (1588–​1644): Polski teolog we fryzyjskim Franekerze,” OiRwP 40 (1996): 37–​ 52; Skwarowie, Życie, XXVI. asr iii, 570; asr iv, 312; AS 2011, 95–​96, 108, 161–​162; AS 2020, 34. Szymańska, “Książka,” 421.

Patterns of Piety

143

supplemented with books from deceased ministers. After it was destroyed by fire, a new stone building was built for it in 1602. The library was eventually moved to Leszno, where it remained and, sadly, where it was burned with the city in 1656. Given its importance, the library was rebuilt again, and the Czech Brethren records are very well preserved.48 In the Grand Duchy, synods are replete with mentions of private, ministerial, and other libraries, some of which were moved to the central library in Vilnius. During the 1634 synod, the Lithuanian Reformed ordered an inventory of the books in Vilnius and demanded that three copies be kept; they also emphasized that attention be paid to the library’s physical state.49 The Lesser Poland Reformed, who never had a durable Church capital like Leszno or Vilnius, had a number of notable private libraries in Baranów Sandomierski and Włodawa, as well as the private library of the Słupecki family. The funeral sermon of Jerzy Laetus (1604–​1649) explicitly mentioned that, due to the Chmielnicki uprising, he lost “a costly library, which he, having only a delight in books, in foreign countries, acquired withholding [things] from himself.”50 Reading and appreciation of books were not reserved for clergy; it was encouraged for nobles, burghers, and peasants alike. In his last will, Krzysztof Zenowicz (c. 1540–​1614) charged his son, Mikołaj Bogusław (d. 1621), to expand the library (housed, tellingly, next to the Reformed church) and “by dilligient [reading] train and sharpen your conscience and reason.” The Toruń mayor and city councilor, Henryk Stroband, (1548–​1609) possessed a large personal library, which he left to the Toruń Gymnasium. In Leszno, Brethren seniors, individual clergy, and lay members assembled sizeable libraries:  the town’s Polish-​language Brethren preacher, Adam Samuel Hartmann (1627–​1691), had a considerable private library, as did the burghers Jan Jonston (1603–​1676) and Martin Zugerhör (1578–​1644), a gunpowder producer. In the early eighteenth century, there are mentions of Calvinist peasants in Kozy who sought hymnals and Bibles printed in Bohemia—​probably Polish and German-​language hymnals and Bibles printed in Brieg, in Silesia, then part of the kingdom of Bohemia.51 48 49 50

asr iv, 174; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce, 87. AS 1915, 41, 77, 89, 90; AS 2011, 105, 116–​117, 121–​122, 157, 168. Gmiterek, “Włodawa,” 58–​65; S.  Kot, “Słupeccy w ruchu reformacyjnym,” in idem, Hugo Grotius a Polska. W 300 lecie dzieła o prawie wojny i pokoju, (Kraków:  1926), 25–​41; Skwarowie, Życie, lxi. 51 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 122; B.  Dybaś, Henryk Strobrand (1548–​1609), PSB, vol. 44 (2006–​2007), 328–​331; W.  Urban, Adam Samuel Hartmanni (1627–​1691), PSB, vol. 9 (1960–​1961), 298–​300; B.  Jurzak, „Haereticorum Ecclesiam.” Dzieje koziańskiej społeczności protestanckiej XVI-​ XIX wieku (unpublished manuscript); Szymańska,

144 

Chapter 7

The reading of books was not confined to men. In his will, Piotr Kochlewski left each of his three daughters a copy of the Breść Bible. The mystic Krystyna Poniatowska (1610–​1644), wife of the Brethren pastor, konsenior, and book printer David Vetter (1592–​1669), was portrayed with an open book and writing utensils. Anna Memorata (c. 1614–​c. 1645) was educated by her father, the Brethren minister Andrzej Jakub Memoratus (d. 1654). She knew Greek, Latin, and rhetoric, published Latin poetry under the name “Virgo Polonia,” and participated in meetings of the Leszno intellectual elite. The Lutheran wife of Leszno’s pharmacist Elias Jacobi, Marina, was known to teach her children using the Bible and “other spiritual books,” as well as prayers and singing. Calvinist women in town probably used similar methods. Elżbieta Górska, a noblewoman living in Oksa had a private prayer book, which she read often enough to notice “the devil” playing tricks with it during the 1648 haunting episode.52 The recent graduate of Leipzig university, Jan Golliusz, was hired by pastor Daniel Regulus to teach his daughter Krystyna how to read and write. This proved to be a chore, since as Golliusz noted, the girl “was very slow in these matters.”53 The link between books and Protestantism was not lost on their Catholic adversaries. The destruction of Protestant churches by Catholic mobs was often accompanied by the destruction of the congregations’ libraries, as in Poznań (1596), Vilnius (1611), and in 1655, when the library of the minister in Kozy was burned by a Catholic mob led by a Catholic priest. Similarly, conversions to Catholicism were often followed by the burning of “heretical” libraries by the newly-​minted converts: In 1581 the young and zalaous ex-​Calvinist bishop of Vilnius, Jerzy Radziwiłł, publically burnt the unsold copies of the Brześć Bible, that his father spent a fortune to publish. In 1611 the minister in Secemin burned the congregation’s library after converting to Catholicism. Rumors that members of the Słupecki family burnt their books after their conversion were false, but the burgher Barian-​Rokicki family did indeed purge their family library after converting to Catholicism between 1601 and 1611. When some members of the Podlodowski family converted to Catholicism in 1630s, the library of their Protestant ancestors was given to a local Franciscan monastery, where marked “prohibitus” it was kept away from potential readers. During

52 53

„Książka” 420–​427; W. Urban, “Reformacja wśród chłopów w Oświęcimskiem,” OiRwP 2 (1957): 155. Szymańska, „Książka,” 426–​427; N. Śliż, “Testament Piotra Kochlewskiego sędziego brzeskiego ziemskiego z 1646 roku,” Zapiski Historyczne 72 (2007): 101; Rott, Bracia Czescy, 62–​84; Wengersch, Libri, 131. Pamiętnik Jana Golliusza, 98.

Patterns of Piety

145

the “Deluge,” the royalist forces, led by the former Calvinist Stefan Czarniecki, not only ransacked the Calvinist church in Góry, but also burned the congregation’s library.54 Books, particularly of collections of sermons called “postyllas,” were very popular among the Commonwealth’s faithful. Clergy however, did not always share that enthusiasm: the conservative Brethren senior Izrael remarked sarcastically, “He slept splendidly, the lazy one, relying on postyllas,” suggesting that some skipped church services and read the sermons at home.55 While the Brethren showed restraint towards them, the other Reformed churches did not. A major work was produced by the Lesser Poland minister Grzegorz z Żarnowca (c. 1528–​1601) titled Postyilla albo wykład Ewanieliy Niedzielnych y Świąt uroczystych. It was published in three volumes (1580, 1582, 1584) and reissued in Vilnius in the Grand Duchy in 1597 (the first two volumes) and in 1605 (the third volume). Written as a polemic against a Catholic postylla of Jakub Wujek, it proved to be immensely popular both in the Crown and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Krzysztof Kraiński also published his own Postylla—​a work of no less than 1,327 pages in five volumes: the first three were published in 1611 and the last two in 1618. Kraiński’s book was published not only as a polemic against Jesuit propaganda, but also as a way of strengthening the faith of the beleaguered Reformed.56 Despite Izrael’s criticism of the postyllas, they functioned well, particularly in the diaspora. In 1618, after his convert brother closed the Calvinist church in Niszczyce, Krzysztof Niszczycki wrote that he would spend Easter at home in Mazowsze, reading the Postylla to his children. They were, quite possibly, the last Protestant nobles in that area and reading Calvinist sermons together diminished their sense of spiritual isolation. In the end, even the Brethren relented and began work on a postylla of their own. Written by the senior Jan Bythner (who, tellingly, came from Lesser Poland), the first part was published in 1655 in 1,000 copies. Unfortunately, when Leszno was set on fire by the royal troops in 1656, almost all the copies were burned; one single copy is known

54

55 56

Kronika Zboru, 171; Czapnik, „Księgozbiór,” 105; Gmiterek, Zbigniew Słupecki, PSB, 119–​ 120; Z. Guldon, “Stefan Czarniecki a mniejszości etniczne i wyznaniowe w Polsce,” in ed. W. Kowalski, Stefan Czarniecki: żołnierz-​obywatel-​polityk (Kielce: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1999), 109; T. Kempa, Konflikty wyznaniowe w Wilnie od początku reformacji do końca XVII wieku (Toruń: 2016), 144–​145; Kowalska, Feliks Słupecki, PSB, 102–​107. asr i, 139. R. Czyż, Obrona wiary w edycjach postylli Grzegorza z Żarnowca (Warszawa: 2008), 12–​ 48; J.  Dworzaczkowa, “Geneza i losy Postylli na ewangelie Jana Bythnera,” Biblioteka 9 (2005):149–​153; Jelińska, “Sarmacki,” 4–​8.

146 

Chapter 7

to have survived. The second part, was destroyed in the same fire, before ever being published.57 It has been said that the Commonwealth’s Reformation were “theologically weak”58 but this charge does not hold up under close scrutiny. The Commonwealths were indeed never able to translate the full text of Calvin’s Institutes into Polish. In 1612, a lay member of the Lithuanian Brethren, Jan Czyż, pled for help with his personal endeavor to do so, but was assigned only one minister by the synod. Another attempt at a translation was made in 1617, but again, with no results to show. In 1624, Czyż’s translation, which had apparently been finished but was of questionable quality, was to be reviewed by a special ministers’ committee. Nothing came out of that effort. But the two parts of the Institutes that were translated into Polish and published are very telling. In 1599, the Lesser Poland Brethren translated and published the section of the Institutes about to the relationship between rulers and their subjects. In 1626, an excerpt from the fourth book of the Institutes regarding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Nauki o sakramencie świętych, appeared in Polish, translated by Piotr Siestrzeniewicz, a Calvinist schoolteacher in Vilnius. Both translated parts dealt with issues of paramount importance to the Commonwealth’s Reformed: their obedience to the authority of the increasingly hostile state and the differences in teaching the Lord’s Supper from the Catholics.59 The Heidelberg Catechism was allegedly first translated into Polish by the Kujawy Calvinists and published in 1564, but that translation has not survived—​it was either a very small edition and read to exhaustion, or more likely, it never existed at all. The earliest extant translation (with the Polish text opposite to the text in Latin) was published in 1605, and later reprinted in 1615, in 1616, and in 1619. It was taught together with the Kraiński version of the Coś Ty? that was published in the Crown in 1610, and later (with corrections) in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1620. Both the Heidelberg and Kraiński’s catechisms

57

58 59

J. Maciuszko, Ewangelicka postyllografia polska XVI-​XVII wieku. Charakterystyka—​analiza porównawcza—​recepcja (Warszawa:  1987), passim; Jelińska, “Sarmacki,” 4–​ 8; Z.  B. Płużańska, Zygmunt Niszczycki. Zapoznany parlamentarzysta szlachecki i klient radziwiłłowski (Warszawa: 1999), 104; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 161. J. Tazbir, Reformacja w Polsce (Warszawa:  1993), 27; J.  Tazbir, “Reformacja jako ruch umysłowy,” in idem, Szlachta i teologowie. Studia z dziejów polskiej kontrreformacji (Warszawa: 1987), 31–​52. AS 1915, 9, 43, 88, 103; AS 2011, 1; J. Kalwin, O zwierzchności świeckiej opr. W. Kriegseisen, (Warszawa: 2009), 24–​47; M. Korzo, “Jeszcze raz w sprawie nieznanego tłumaczenia Jana Kalwina w Polsce,” OiRwP 56 (2012): 192–​201.

Patterns of Piety

147

were taught at the Reformed schools in Lesser Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as well as in schools run by the Czech Brethren.60 The Commonwealth’s Calvinists were aware of the theological debates in the Reformed camp raging elsewhere in Europe. Zbigniew Słupecki possessed the works of the Huguenot anti-​Jesuit polemicist Anton de La Roche Chandieu (1534–​1591). Kraiński probably referred to these works when writing his attacks on Jesuits in his Postylla. His monumental Postylla is proof that he was very well acquainted with the works of his contemporary Calvinist theologians in France, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and even England. In 1657, Jan Teodoryk Potocki (1608–​1654) published his own translation of a postylla by the Palatine divine Abraham Scultetus (1566–​1624), together with his own explanations and notes. He dedicated the Polish translation to his daughters, as his sons were able to read it in the original German, and, presumably, had their own copies. The 1617 translation of Peter du Moulin’s Héraclite ou de la vanité et la misère de la vie humaine brought a death sentence on the translator, Samuel Bolestraszycki (d. c. 1654). The zealously Catholic Lublin Tribunal proclaimed the death sentence but did lift it in 1649.61 Traditionally, there has been a perception that the Commonwealth’s Calvinists had little interest in the Reformed polemics concerning predestination; this can be seen in the ambiguity found regarding the subject in the Sandomir Confession.62 This is, again, an oversimplification. The Commonwealth’s Reformed, particularly the clergy, were well aware of both Calvin’s teachings on the subject and the polemics raging in Western Europe. However, their different theological and political milieus “were not conducive to the acceptance of Calvin’s [concept of] double predestination.”63 Heeding wisely to Calvin’s warnings, the Commonwealth’s Reformed chose to dwell on the question of God’s election of those chosen for salvation.64 In 1637, the Brethren synod admitted that some members were disturbed by the concept of double predestination and ordered the senior Jan Rybiński to write a treaty in Polish explaining the doctrine; he died before this could be completed. The synodal record is clear that those who were scandalized by

60 Gmiterek, “Problemy,” 95–​97; Korzo, “W sprawie,” 177–​198. 61 Gmiterek, Zbigniew Słupecki, PSB, 120; M. Sipayłło, Jan Teodoryk Potocki (ok.1608–​1664), PSB, vol. 28 (1984), 28–​29; Tazbir, Reformacja w Polsce, 201–​234. 62 Maciuszko, Ewangelicka postyllografia, 127–​128; Tazbir, “Społeczeństwo wobec reformacji,” 331–​356. 63 Czyż, Obrona, 126. 64 Ibid., 123–​126.

148 

Chapter 7

the concept learned about it not from Brethren ministers or their sermons but from “adversaries”—​the text implies Lutherans.65 Post-​1595, Reformed religious life took on a more structured form, showing parallels to the religious patterns of their co-​religionists in Western Europe. Families, led by the head of the household, performed daily devotions at home. In the Royal Prussia, daily prayers were said in all the city churches, and there is reason to believe that they were attended by the Reformed. In places where there were Reformed schools, prayers were said in the morning and evening, as well as on Wednesdays, when a sermon was preached. In the Bełżyce Gymnasium, students of all grades were required to study the Heidelberg Catechism on Wednesdays. As in all times, youth attitude toward religion was fraught. In 1642, the Lesser Poland synod sternly ordered that the students at the provincial gymnasium in Bełżyce be forbidden “swords, bows, guns, and the shaving of heads, or their growing like in the fashion of knechts and soldiers, from whom they are to properly differ and in piety and learning be diligent.”66 The school was not always a safe place. In 1643, a mentally unstable Reformed nobleman, Jan Wylam, manhandled the rector and several teachers, wrecked the parsonage, beat up a few of his fellow students, and almost started a city-​wide riot.67 The other churches had similar, but not identical, requirements for (and complaints about) their students. In 1634, the Brethren ordered their alumni in Toruń and Leszno to wear either Polish or German dress and issued an impressive list of forbidden clothing items, which included “big collars, cuffs, unnecessary garters, no roses on the shoes,” as well as having “too long hair.”68 The laws regulating the schools in the Grand Duchy, passed in 1629, stated curtly: “intoxication and night walking are to be avoided by all, both the docents and the dicentes.”69 On Sundays, the Commonwealth’s Calvinists attended two services: one in the morning, and one in the afternoon after the midday meal. Both sermons were preached from the Bible. There was no set practice of preaching from the Heidelberg Catechism during the afternoon Sunday service; however, in the Brethren Church, portions of their catechism were read verbatim at the end of the evening service. Some congregations (like in Lublin) had daily prayers

65 Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8, fol. 103–​104. 66 Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 82. 67 Tworek, Działalność, 183–​184. 68 app abc 1493, fol. 185. 69 AS 2011, 54.

Patterns of Piety

149

during the week and held shorter worship services on Wednesdays and Fridays, when a short sermon was preached.70 Polish was the liturgical language, but all three Churches did their best to accommodate the linguistic needs of the faithful. Thus, in Gdańsk, Reformed services were held in Dutch and German in addition to the regular Polish services that were held from 1626 until 1707. In Toruń, Brethren pastors officiated Lutheran services in Polish, but they also preached in German on a regular basis. Some congregations, like Poznań, had separate church buildings for the Polish and German faithful. Others, like Cracow, Vilnius, Leszno, Lublin, Włodawa, and Skoki, had one church where separate services were held in Polish, German, and Czech. The Calvinist district in Oświęcim was heavily populated with German and Dutch (Wilamowice) speakers; services there were held in German as well as in Polish. It is not clear what liturgy was used in German services—​no official translations of the Great Agenda were ever published and probably the Palatine liturgy was used. Again, there were some local variants: in Cracow the communion liturgy was celebrated only in Polish for both the Polish and the German congregations, but in Vilnius there were separate communion services in Polish and in German.71 Post-​1624, the influx of Czech Brethren refugees brought the establishment of separate Czech congregations in Leszno (1628–​1656), Skoki in Greater Poland (until the end of the seventeenth century), and Włodawa in Lesser Poland (1628–​1648?). The Czech refugees swelled the numbers of the Reformed congregations in Toruń and Baranów Sandomierski, but no separate congregations were established for them in those two cities.72 Despite a considerable number of Scottish congregants throughout the churches in Greater and Lesser Poland, it appears that most attended the Polish language services. Scots did have their own sermons in English in Kiejdany from the 1620s. In 1638, the Lithuanian synod was forced to intervene after the Polish members in Kiejdany complained that their sermons followed the Lithuanian and the Scottish sermons leaving little time for the Polish before the afternoon round of services began. The Synod ordered that Sunday worship was to begin with a sermon in Lithuanian, followed by the Polish and the Scottish. By 1655, the Scottish-​language sermons appear to have ended, and the Scots joined the Polish sermons, although they continued as a separate “congregation” until the end of that century. In Royal Prussia’s Gdańsk, Scots made up a considerable fraction of the two Reformed congregations of St. Peter and Paul 70 buw ser 1175, fol. 2. 71 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 76–​78. 72 Ibid., 113, 136–​137.

150 

Chapter 7

and St. Elizabeth but no separate congregation for the Scots was formed until 1692.73 Polish was the primary language of worship in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the formation of the Reformed Church there and remained such until 1918, and in Vilnius until 1939. The Lithuanian Reformed Church tried to accommodate the needs of the serf population with little knowledge of Polish while acknowledging that the number of Lithuanian-​speaking pastors was “tight.”74 The first liturgy in Lithuanian was published in 1598, together with the catechism in Polish and its translation into Lithuanian. The first explicit mention of preaching in Lithuanian comes from the town of Kiejdany, where Reformed services were held in Polish and Scots. In 1627, the Lithuanian synod ordained Krzysztof Minwid (d. 1632) as a separate Lithuanian preacher for Kiejdany and later Birże. His work must have met with considerable success, as the 1633 synod, “[for] the greater building of God’s Glory,” ordered that communion services in Kiejdany alternate between Polish and Lithuanian. By the end of seventeenth century, seventeen out of thirty-​seven Reformed congregations in Żmudź—​mainly rural—​had services in Lithuanian (with varying regularity), in addition to Polish-​language services. No regular services or sermons were preached in Vilnius in Lithuanian until the late nineteenth century.75 To ensure that some ministers were fluent enough to preach in Lithuanian, the Lithuanian Reformed sometimes delayed a candidate’s study abroad to allow him to acquire the language. Krzysztof Minwid’s brother, Samuel (1602–​c. 1654), superintendent of Zawieje, was charged with translating the 1641 Akt Usługi and catechism from Polish into Lithuanian, which appeared in print in 1653. Samuel’s son, Mikołaj Minwid (d. 1688), was the superintendent of Żmudź and attempted unsuccessfully to publish the Bible in Lithuanian in London or Königsberg. No records exist of services in Byelorussian, but we do know from the legates by Zofia Wnuczkowa that an effort was made to teach Ruthenian children and, thus, win them over to the Reformed Church.76 Holy communion services, according to the rules set by the Lesser Poland Provincial Synod in 1598 in Ożarów, were celebrated generally four times a year: on Easter, Pentecost, Michaelmas, and between Christmas and Epiphany.

73 Bajer, Scots, 235–​246; 277–​281; Žirgulis, “The Scottish,” 225–​233. 74 AS 2011, 27. 75 I. Lukšaitė, “Die reformatorischen Kirchen Litauens bis 1795” in Die reformatorischen Kirchen Litauens (Erlangen: 1998), 19–​136. 76 AS 2011, 86, 97, 119; S. Tworek, Jan Minwid (ok.1582–​1638), PSB, vol. 21 (1976), 315–​ 316; idem, Mikołaj Minwid (zm. 1688), PSB, vol. 21 (1976), 316–​317; idem, Samuel Minwid (1602-​po 1654), PSB, vol. 21 (1976), 317–​318; Petkunas, Holy, 167–​168.

Patterns of Piety

151

In Cracow, where the congregation worshipped in two different locations, holy communion was celebrated on Palm Sunday in Łuczanowice and on Easter in Wielkanoc, and respectively on the fourth Sunday in Advent and Christmas Day. The Lesser Poland’s pattern of four communion services per year was generally followed in the Brethren churches as well—​though the 1631 records of the Parcice congregation mention that holy communion was celebrated five times per year. The Reformed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had a distinct tradition of offering a fifth communion service on Maundy Thursday (Vilnius, Słuck, and Kiejdany) or, rarely, on Palm Sunday (Bielica). That practice survived in all the three Churches until the end of the nineteenth century, and in some areas until the mid-​twentieth century.77 Communion services were very well attended (especially on Easter), drawing not just the faithful from the local town or village but also from towns where there was no Reformed church and the faithful had to travel long distances to worship. The diary of the Zamość burgher Jan Golliusz shows that he took communion in the church in Krasnobród, travelling there despite pestilence and danger on the roads.78 Often, visits for communion services lasted for days and were a chance to reconnect with fellow Reformed, as well as to strengthen one’s faith, for the coming months of living in diaspora.79 In all three Churches, following the rules set out by Łaski, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was announced two weeks before the sacrament was to take place. Due to the large number of Easter communicants, traditionally the sermon on Palm Sunday was devoted to the explanation of the sacrament—​ this pattern was reflected by the postyllas, too. The 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda and its 1641 Lithuanian version, Akt Usługi, both contained a liturgy for church discipline to be held one day directly preceding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper during a preparatory service. However, it seems this was another case where a dying liturgical tradition made it into a prayer book in the vain hope that in this way it could be revived. The preparatory services were beginning to fall into disuse (Chapter 5) and were abandoned altogether before the end of the seventeenth century. Instead, records from the Wielkanoc congregation in Lesser Poland suggest a slightly different practice: those wishing to partake of the sacrament were subject to church discipline and presented themselves before the church elders before the sacrament. The time varied from two weeks to even early morning on the day itself. The 1626 laws of the Lublin congregation reserved Wednesdays and Fridays before every communion Sunday for 77 asr iii, 198; Księga Wtóra, passim; LVIA F-​606/​1/​144–​145. 78 Pamiętnik Jana Golliusza, 98–​100, 102. 79 Ibid., 100.

152 

Chapter 7

the elders and pastors to “judge” those wishing to commune and to bring about reconciliation.80 After the Lublin congregation moved to Bełżyce, these services were assigned to the day before communion Sunday.81 In Greater Poland, those wishing to partake were required to have a private conference with the pastor (and perhaps with an elder) called “conversation about the conscience” earlier in the day of the sacrament. Post-​1634, it slowly developed into a meeting with the elders in the Reformed style. Often, those admitted fasted before partaking but without ostentation.82 From the time of Łaski, communion in private was discouraged under the pretense that the sacrament should be celebrated with dignity and decorum. However, with the number of churches shrinking in the seventeenth century, these provisions were relaxed, particularly for those living far away from their congregations. Already in the seventeenth century, we see weddings performed at private homes, rather than in the church, a practice that the Polish and ­Lithuanian Reformed would retain until the end of the nineteenth century. Even before the Great Gdańsk Agenda, the Lord’s Supper was generally administered while the faithful stood around the communion table—​as opposed to sitting at a table, which was the Unitarian custom. In the Brethren churches, communicants took the sacrament kneeling, which the Lesser Poland and the Lithuanian Reformed frowned upon. In Cracow, according to the 1616 agreement, the Lutherans could use the churches in Wielkanoc and Lucjanowice for their services. They were also grudgingly permitted to kneel, but that accommodation was extended only to the laity. The Lutheran elders and the minister were to receive communion standing, and work to “knock out of the heads” of others the practice of kneeling, and thus making the Lutherans more ­Reformed.83 In Lublin, the influx of German Lutherans in early seventeenth century introduced a communion railing in the sanctuary, but it was not used by the Reformed. In the Grand Duchy, there was a local variant when distributing the elements: whereas the Greater and Lesser Poland Calvinists pronounced the blessing over the bread and distributed it to the faithful—​before doing the same for the cup with wine—​in Lithuania the blessing was pronounced over both and both elements were then distributed with no additional prayers. The 1641 Lithuanian Akt Usługi also used slightly different wording for the Institution 80 buw ser 1175, fol. 3. 81 boz 1183, fol. 19, 46, 48–​49, 99–​100. 82 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 77, 119; Księga Wtóra; Petkunas, Holy, 222–​225. 83 Kronika Zboru, 111.

Patterns of Piety

153

narrative, stressing its more memorial character. All three Churches used wine for the sacrament, but the Lesser Poles and Lithuanians used bread, whereas the Brethren continued to use hosts until the end of the seventeenth century.84 Reformed church buildings were plain, initially devoid of any fancy furnishings; their plainness gave rise to a Polish folk saying: “Empty like a Calvinist church.” In the new Reformed churches built in the 1600s (Oksa, Leszno, Kojdanów, and Słuck), the congregation was seated around a pulpit, which tended to be of substantial size, and stressed the primacy of the sermon in the liturgical context. The church in Oksa, in Lesser Poland, was one of the first in the Commonwealth built specifically for Reformed worship and was based on the plan of a Greek cross, with an unusual stone pulpit centrally located in one of the pillars. There were no crucifixes or crosses, nor were there any candles on the communion table for liturgical reasons (they were used, of course, to light the buildings). The communion table was placed centrally only when the sacrament was celebrated—​otherwise it stood under the pulpit.85 The communion table was covered with a cloth and was decorated with the Bible when the sacrament was not celebrated.86 Exceptions were rare: the pious Duke Jerzy Radziwiłł (1578–​1613), introduced in his newly-​built church of Wijżuny organs, liturgical vestments, fonts for holy water, candlesticks, and other “popish” innovations. Organs were not used in the Reformed churches until the end of the eighteenth century and singing was unaccompanied. Singing hymns and psalms soon became an important feature of Reformed worship, particularly in the Brethren and Lesser Poland Churches. The 1626 laws of the Lublin congregation mention singing in every service: Sunday and weekday.87 The Lithuanian Reformed complained that the other two Churches “burdened services with too many hymns.”88 After the 1600s, the plainness of the Reformed churches started to give way to minor decorations beginning with epitaphs for prominent church members (Secemin, Leszno, Vilnius, Kielmy) and hanging draperies on the walls. After the 1611 campaign against Muscovy, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł donated an elaborate candelabrum, allegedly owned by the Tsar, to the Reformed church 84 Petkunas, Holy, 300–​313. 85 P. Birecki, “Kalwińskie budowle kościele na terenie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w okresie nowożytnym,” Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici 46 (2005): 133–​147; P. Krasny, “Zbór kalwiński w Oksie przyczynek do badań nad formą centralną w polskiej architekturze sakralnej wieku XVI,” in Magistro et Amico amici discipulique. Lechowi Kalinowskiemu w osiemdziesięciolecie urodzin (Kraków: 2002), 257–​269. 86 asr iii, 606. 87 buw ser 1175 fol. 2. 88 AS 2011, 3.

154 

Chapter 7

in Kiejdany. In 1633, the Lithuanian Reformed ordered that a tablecloth cover the communion table in Vilnius church.89 From the 1600s onwards, we hear more and more of lace or silk communion-​table and parament covers made and donated by the women of the congregations. In her last will Marcjanna Grużewska (1602–​1673) bequeathed to the Kielmy Reformed church, among other things, a gold and silver communion set, a velvet tablecloth with gold trim, two silver candelabra, and silk covers for the communion set. Other churches received similar gifts. Most churches displayed the text of the Ten Commandments and either the Lord’s Prayer or the Apostles’ Creed on the walls.90 Church members—​men and women, noble and burghers—​were buried in sanctuaries themselves, often with memorial cenotaphs.91 We know that ministers in Lesser and Greater Poland used cassocks and surplices until the end of the seventeenth century. When Mikołaj Dasyp was defrocked in 1607, the records mention that the senior and elders “took off of him ornamenta ministerii.”92 This and a handful of other mentions testify to the fact that ministers wore cassocks in daily life: In 1610 the Lesser Poland’s minister Jan Oliński, was put on probation and orderd “not to use secular clothes unbecoming his estate.”93 In 1626 Aleksander Witrelin was suspended by the Chęciny district and sterny warned not to “pass as a shepherd or to walk [wear] in a minister’s habit.”94 It is uncertain if this was also the case in the Grand Duchy, although it seems likely. In Royal Prussia, the Reformed ministers were ordered by city authorities to use Catholic vestments. Brethren ministers in Toruń were the first to abandon Catholic chasubles, something their Lutheran colleagues dared to do only in the eighteenth century. In Gdańsk, the Calvinists abandoned copes and chasubles during their ascendancy in the 1590s, and these did not return even after the Lutherans regained control in the 1600s.95

89 Ibid., 103. 90 Ibid., 167 (Połock); Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 443 (Malice), 447 (Wielki Tursk and Baranów Sandomierski); Cherner, Słownik, 145; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 76; B. Grużewski, Kościół ewangelicko-​reformowany w Kielmach (Warszawa: 1912), 205–​206. 91 Pamiętnik Jana Golliusza, 102; A.  Saar-​Kozłowska, “Pomnik upamiętniający Annę z Leszczyńskich Potocką w kościele Wniebowzięcia Najświętszej Marii Panny w Toruniu,” Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 9 (2015): 38–​69. 92 asr iii, 609. 93 Ibid., 308. 94 Ibid., 485. 95 E. Wetter, “ ‘On Sundays for the laity… we allow mass vestments, altars, candles to remain’:  The Role of Pre-​Reformation Ecclesiastical Vestments in the Formation of Confessional, Corporate, and ‘National’ Identities,” in ed. A. Spicer, Lutheran Churches in Early Modern Europe, (Ashgate: 2012), 176–​177.

Patterns of Piety

155

Post-​1595, we see a true building boom of new churches for Reformed worship, fuelled in part by the Roman Catholics reclaiming their former churches. Many of the new structures were wooden and have not survived, but some were built of stone (Leszno, Oksa, Kiejdany, and Kielmy). In large centers of Calvinism like Leszno, Baranów Sandomierski, Kiejdany, and Kojdanów, the churches had prominent locations in the towns and resembled small cathedrals in size—​in fact, in the Grand Duchy they were called exactly that. The church in Kojdanów was built on a hill, surrounded by walls and four defense towers, testifying to the uneasy position of the Reformed (front cover photo). In 1612, the fervent Calvinist Krzysztof Zenowicz reissued the privilege for the Reformed church in his private town of Smorgonie, in the Grand Duchy. He built it in the town’s center together with a bell tower and three bells, a clock, a library, and a parsonage. The Calvinist school, along with housing for a teacher, also stood prominently at the town’s square.96 A participant of the dedication ceremony of the new stone church edifice in Radzięcin (1653) described it as “very beautiful.”97 Nobles and rich burghers often built their own homes next to these churches, where older people could stay “in devotion.” We know of such buildings in Kojdanów, Lucjanowice, Radzięcin, Sieczków, Słuck, Wielkanoc, etc. This 1600s church building expansion coincided with a new pattern of piety: many new church foundations were laid together with parsonages, schools, and almshouses. In 1631, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł, together with his wife Anna Kiszka (d. 1642), built two stone churches, a school, an almshouse, and an orphanage in their city of Kiejdany. They also provided for all these establishments with a gift of 25,000 zlotych. Similar generosity is seen in the founding of churches by middle nobles:  Parcice in Greater Poland by the Kochlewski family (1605), Orzeszkowo in Greater Poland (1645), Piotr Kochlewski in Nurzec in the Grand Duchy (1631), the Bobrownicki family in Łapczyna Wola in Lesser Poland (1632), Radzięcin (1653) and many more. While most of the Reformed schools collapsed by the end of the seventeenth or early eighteenth century, some of the almshouses functioned until the end of that century, and Vilnius’ almshouse existed until the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland.98 96 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 133–​138. 97 Pamiętnik Jana Golliusza, 103. 98 U. Augustyniak, ““Druga Reformacja” w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w 1 połowie XVII wieku. W poszukiwaniu tożsamości wyznaniowej,” in Sztuka i dialog wyznań w XVI i XVII wieku. Materiały Sesji Stowarzyszenia Historyków Sztuki Wrocław, listopad 1999 (Warszawa: 2000), 223–​233; idem, Testamenty, 207; S. Herbst, Władysław Dorohostajski (1611–​1638), PSB, vol. 5 (1939–​1946), 335; W.  Kriegseisen, “Miłosierdzie czy opieka społeczna? Działalność opiekuńcza w Jednocie ewangelicko-​reformowanej Wielkiego

156 

Chapter 7

Last wills were often the documents where faithful Calvinists could not only record an extensive statement of their faith and an anti-​Catholic polemic (Jan Hlebowicz), but also provide for the churches that they or their ancestors had founded (Piotr Kochlewski, Krzysztof Zenowicz, Elżbieta Abramowicz), or attempt to guarantee that Reformed services would continue after their death (Fabian Czema, Krzysztof Zenowicz). Before leaving for his travels in Western Europe in 1632, the young and pious Władysław Dorohostajski wrote his will in which he reissued all the bequests his family had made for the Reformed churches in Montwidów, Oszmiana Murowana, Pohost in the Grand Duchy and Dorohostaje in the Crown. Scottish merchants were also generous benefactors: Tomasz Forbes (d. 1642) left 2,000 złotych for the Protestant poor in the Cracow parish and smaller donations to the Catholic charities. The note in the congregation’s records next to the information about his funeral says “vir probus, pius, rectus ac modestus.”99 Another Scotsman, Dawid Aikenhead, made generous bequests to congregations in Bełżce (where he also supported the pastor and the almshouse), Chmielnik, Rejowiec, Malice, Łapczyńska Wola, and Piaski totaling almost 1,500 złotych.100 Jan Kałaj, left 1,000 złotych for the education in the Toruń Gymnasium of young men from the Cracow congregation. Few notices of smaller donations survived: in 1648 a burgher, Mikołaj the Goldsmith, left in his will a small donation to the church and almshouse in Bełżyce.101 Many members were generous, but some were not. A case in point was Samuel Mielęcki (d. 1652) from Greater Poland. A patron of a church in Mielęcin, he kept it vacant for years, despite threats of excommunication. He squabbled over the minister’s salary with the Brethren authorities, first promising 200 zlotych per year, and then rescinding that and offering only half of that sum, as well as arguing over specific items he was to provide. In his will, while professing his “orthodox evangelical faith” and desiring that his children be brought up and marry in it, he did not leave a penny to the church. By contrast, the same will contains an extensive list of “jewels, silver tableware, silk clothes, lynx furs, sable furs, fur pants, carpets, cash, and loan papers”—​all this left by Księstwa Litewskiego w XVIII wieku,” in ed. U. Augustyniak and A. Karpiński, Charitas. Miłosierdzie i opieka społeczna w ideologii, normach postępowania i praktyce społeczności wyznaniowych w Rzeczpospolitej XVI-​XVIII wieku (Warszawa:  2001), 115–​130; Cherner, Słownik, 233. 99 Księga Wtóra, fol. 173. 100 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 138–​140; W.  Kowalski, The Great Immigration. Scots in Cracow and Little Poland circa 1500–​1600, (Leiden-​Boston: 2016), 162–​163, 170; Bajer, Scots, 294. 101 Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 182.

Patterns of Piety

157

a man who haggled with the Brethren seniors over two fields of carrots and cabbage and a large side of bacon.102 Stinginess was not the only sin of some Calivinist nobles. Many were far from obeying Christ’s command to be gentle like doves. Stanisław Stadnicki (c. 1551–​1610), the son of Stancaro’s patron, was the lone brother who remained Calvinist all his life. He was a zealous Protestant and a generous patron of the church in his town of Łańcut. At the same time, he displayed pathological cruelty and vindictiveness to his enemies, which earned him the nickname “the Devil.” Aleksander Sienieński was a son of the Calvinist Krzysztof (d. c. 1627) and nephew of the Unitarian Jakub Sienieński (1568–​1639). Unlike his father and uncle, who were known for their piety, his fame came from savage cruelty, cold-​blooded murders, and violent inheritance disputes with his family.103 Like their Catholic contemporaries, the Commonwealth’s Protestants attached great importance to godly, loving, and faithful marriage relationships. Marriage was seen as a covenant made for life, and with time, mutual affection and love would flourish. Unlike Catholics, the Reformed accepted divorce in principle, although it was rarely granted in practice. The two known divorce cases from Lesser Poland both occurred before 1560, and both were caused by spousal adultery. No divorces are known for the period between 1550 and 1648 for the Brethren. In the Grand Duchy in 1606, Stanisław Kiszka (d. 1626) converted to Catholicism and had his marriage to Zofia Zenowicz annulled; he then became bishop of Żmudź and maintained a visceral hatred for his former coreligionists. But it was the Roman Catholic and not the Reformed Church that dissolved his marriage.104 For the period 1611–​1655 we have mentions of four divorce petitions in the Lithuanian synodical records. Two were granted: one based on the husband hiding his complete impotence (1615) and the other on his continued infidelity (1623). The other two were denied with one couple ordered to seek medical help for the groom’s impotence (1624) and the other told that contentious marital living is not enough to warrant a divorce—​ separation was granted insead (1643). Still, it was the Lithuanians who insisted the Great Gdańsk Agenda contain provisions for church divorce.105 102 Testamenty szlacheckie z ksiąg grodzkich wielkopolskich z lat 1631–​1655 ed. Paweł Klint (Poznań-​ Wrocław 2008), 114. 103 J. Byliński, Stanisław Stadnicki zw. Diabłem (ok. 1551–​1610), 425–​432; I.  Kaniewska, Jakub Sienieński (1568–​1639), PSB, vol. 37, (1996), 174–​179; idem, Krzysztof Sienieński (zm. po 1627), vol. 37, (1996), 189–​190; Łoziński, Prawem, 364–​367, 531–​610. 104 asr i, 249–​250 (1557); asr ii, 17 (1560); T. Wasilewski, Stanisław Kiszka (1584–​1626), PSB, vol. 12 (1966–​1967), 517–​518. 105 AS 1915, 33, 77–​78, 86–​87; AS 2020, 77.

158 

Chapter 7

After 1595, the moral standards tightened. In 1610 after warning the minister Jan Oliński to live peaceably with his wife and not to wear secular clothes, he was also ordered to abstain from visiting those households where his wife suspected he had affairs.106 In 1611, Elżbieta, the wife of the minister Mikołaj Orlicz (d. 1640), despite having committed adultery and attempting to have him murdered, withdrew under church pressure her petition for divorce, and the spouses were reconciled. A year later, the Chęciny district synod in Oksa refused to allow Katarzyna Bythner to divorce her mentally ill husband. Not even her father, Bartłomiej Byter the Older, the Oświęcim district senior, could help her. In fact, he was ordered to return her to the husband, and they appear to have reconciled several years later.107 The church’s patience and efforts at reconciliation were not always successful as evident in the case of Przecław Bobrownicki (Chapter 5). One of the greatest Calvinist marital scandals involved Duchess Zofia Radziwiłł (1577–​1614), the second wife of the dignitary Krzysztof Mikołaj Dorohostajski (1564–​1615). After a decade of unhappy marriage, her affair with his client nobleman came out in late 1607. Despite her husband’s request, her brother, Duke Jerzy Radziwiłł, rejected the possibility of divorce. Zofia was held in confinement for five years, first in Gdansk, and then in her husband’s rural estate in Oszmiana, and the couple eventually reconciled. Her sister, Duchess Katarzyna Radziwiłł (d. c. 1621), also had an affair and left her husband, Piotr Gorajski (d. 1619), a Calvinist from Lesser Poland—​but they never divorced. Their cousin, Janusz i Radziwiłł (1579–​1620), was unhappily married to his first wife Princess Zofia Olekowicz Słucka (1585–​1612) who cheated on him with a servant (the affair even made it into a short peom Smaczny Kąsek by Naborowski), but in his case, it was her immense dowry that prevented divorce, though religious scruples cannot be ruled out.108 As one historian has observed, the Commonwealth’s Protestants showed great restraint when disciplining children and, I believe, a distinct tenderness towards both their spouses and children.109 In his 1582 will, Jerzy Zenowicz (c. 1510–​1583) showed affection for his wife, Hanna Słuszczanka, whom he

1 06 asr iii, 308. 107 Ibid., 315, 322, 470–​479; Pawelec, Bartłomiej Bythner, 65–​66. 108 J. Seredyka, Księżniczka i chudopachołek (Opole:  1995); I.  Heitzman, Piotr Gorajski (zm.1619), PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960), 283–​285; T.  Wasilewski, Janusz Radziwiłł (1579–​ 1620), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 202–​208. 109 Frick, states that “he sees no reason to suppose [such tender love] was unique to Lutherans and Calvinists” but admits earlier on „No documents I have encountered (…) speak so directly to love for children.” Frick, Kith, 120.

Patterns of Piety

159

lavished with praise and thanks, and his daughter, whom he lovingly called “little daughter” (córeczka) despite the fact that she was already married with children by that time. Duke Jerzy Radziwiłł spoke tenderly of his wife Zofia Zborowska, repeatedly calling her “beloved,”110 and generously provided for her in his will. He also movingly described their children, all of whom died in infancy, as follows: “that the highest Lord gave them to me, and my beloved’s wife grief, before our eyes death promptly kidnapped them and mercilessly took away, so that we both had more grief than joy from their birth.”111 Writing his will a week before his death, the Calvinist Fabian Czema (d. 1636), castellan of Chełm, made his only “beloved daughter (…) out of fatherly love” his universal heir, and literally begged her legal guardians to treat her “this my infant” (dziecięciu mym) as their own. It is worth pointing out that Anna Czema (d. 1670) was no infant and married only three days after her father’s death; the concern of a dying father for his only daughter is noteworthy.112 The stern Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł was in love with his wife, Anna Kiszka, as was his granddaughter Princess Anna Maria Radziwiłł (1640–​1667) with her cousin and husband, Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł (1640–​1669). The Calvinist line of the Radziwiłł family appears to have had special, close bonds between fathers and daughters: Princess Anna Maria adored her father, Duke Janusz ii Radziwiłł, and was despondent for weeks after his death. Her aunt, Katarzyna Hlebowicz (1614–​1674), had a very close relationship with her father, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł, perhaps closer than her brother ever did. The last of the line, Duke Bogusław, doted on his only daughter, Princess Ludwika Karolina (1667–​1695), as can be seen from the instructions left for her education. Similarly, the Słupecki family in Lesser Poland enjoyed close familial bonds—​ writing on his deathbed, Jerzy Słupecki (d. 1663)  recalled the tender love of his mother. Similarly, the epitaph of Anna Potocka (1615–​1653) at Saint Mary’s Church in Toruń mentions her as her husband’s wife of 20 years “tenderly desired (…) sweetest life’s companion.”113 This was not just limited to Calvinist nobility. Kornelisz Winhold (1600–​1638), a Reformed Burgher from Vilnius, had the sermons preached by his pastor at the death of his two toddler children published.114 1 10 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 143–​147. 111 Ibid., 143. 112 Testamenty szlachty Prus Królewskich z XVII wieku, ed. J. Kowalkowski and W. Nowosad, (Warszawa: 2013), 176. 113 Jelińska, “Sarmacki,” 40–​43, 55–​59; Augustyniak, Testamenty, passim; Wisner, Janusz Radziwiłł, passim; Saar-​Kozłowska, “Pomnik,” 52; H. Wisner, Krzysztof Radziwiłł (1585–​ 1640), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 276–​283. 114 Frick, Kith, 120.

160 

Chapter 7

When it comes to raising children, the instructions have shown, as one author put it, “a definite smaller degree of formalism”115 than similar Catholic instructions. First of all, the Commonwealth’s Calvinists had no hesitation in educating their daughters as well as their sons. Although Protestant gymnasia and schools were open only to men, the Reformed did educate young women in the tenets of their religion. This was a source of scorn from the Jesuits, who ridiculed the Calvinist women as ones who “themselves preach … Have copia verborum, lo, she even debates.”116 The Protestants were not unsettled by this criticism and saw the ability of Calvinist women to read the Bible and write as natural consequences of their faith. The obligation to provide for the education of their young and make sure that they were well-​grounded in their faith in the face of mounting Counterreformation did not discourage parents who wanted religion and piety to be a natural development, rather than a rote, forced piety imposed on their progeny. Duke Krzysztof ii wanted his son to “have pietas rationem in prayers, in reading the Bible and postyllas, in attending church, in [being] wary of all talk and actions contrary to the will of God.”117 In the same vein, Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł ordered that his daughter’s chaplain was to “teach her to read, fashion her into beautiful character, and shine by good example. The same shall on Sunday and Friday say the service compediose, so that through sitting for too long, the desire to listen to sermons not be extinguished.”118 The chaplain and her court mistress were to examine her about the content of the sermon afterwards, but the duke quickly added:  “But do not expect of her to relate the whole sermon, but be content with, if she retains a sentence from Scripture.”119 The duke also encouraged her to read the Bible, but made provisions that some passages from the Old Testament could be skipped due to “maiden’s ­modesty.”120 Broad generalizations should not be made, but one instruction written by Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł in 1667 stands out for its tender love for his soon-​to-​ be-​orphaned daughter. Apart from ensuring her religious education, the father made provisions for all aspects of her life. She was to be fluent in Polish and

1 15 Jelińska, “Sarmacki,” 42. 116 Ibid., 42. 117 Zachara and Majewska-​Lancholc, “Instrukcja,” 177. 118 U. Augustyniak, “Instrukcja Bogusława Radziwiłła dla opiekunów jego córki, Ludwiki Karoliny. Przyczynek do edukacji młodej ewangeliczki w XVII wieku,” OiRwP 36 (1991): 227. 119 Ibid., 227. 120 Ibid., 227.

Patterns of Piety

161

German (she was to be brought up at the Hohenzollern court in Berlin), and if she wanted to, she could learn French as well. She was taught to dress cleanly and in order and eat with propriety and not get dirty “like a little piglet”121 and to wash her mouth and teeth after each meal. The duke explicitly twice allowed her to learn how to dance and to “dance, draw, play the harpsichord and guitar, and do all women’s works which her mother had and knew how to do.”122 He allowed her to wear jewelry (without ostentation) and as to dresses, “let her have new fashions, maidens like that.”123 Remarking that “I do not wish to establish a convent,” he allowed her ladies-​in-​waiting (all of whom were to be Reformed) to marry if an honest proposal arose and suggested no delay for the weddings because “when young men are given easy access to women during courting, inconveniences happen.”124 Generally, the last heiress of Calvinist line of Radziwiłł family was to be brought up as a princess and non-​melancholy, pious, and protective of her co-​ religionists. Her father preferred that she marry one of her Catholic Radziwiłł cousins, provided he allow her a free exercise of her Reformed faith. If not, she was to marry a fellow Calvinist, or a Lutheran or Catholic under the same condition. His wishes were fulfilled, and the princess remained a devout Calvinist, like all her ancestors, all her life.125 Did the Calvinists in the Commonwealth differ greatly from their Catholic neighbors? This is a part of the larger debate of just how different any minorities are from the majorities around them. Writing in the twentieth century, Konarski thought they were and saw these differences as negative, but his judgment was clouded by his personal bias. He was a member of the last generation of gentry swept away by communism, and wistful for the days of old; he always thought his noble ancestors could have attained higher status and rank, had they converted and not stubbornly kept their Calvinist faith. Interestingly, his cousins and distant relatives (both Catholic and Reformed) whom I have interviewed or corresponded with saw the same traits but named them as positives, something they thought made their Reformed ancestors stand apart from the sea of Catholics around them. As Paul Benedict wrote, “Reformed Europe possessed a distinctive religious culture that set it apart from Europe’s other confessions and imparted a characteristic sensibility and range of experiences to those raised within it.”126 1 21 Ibid., 228. 122 Ibid., 230. 123 Ibid., 233. 124 Ibid., 233. 125 Ibid., 232. 126 Benedict, Christ’s, 532.

pa rt 3 The Reformed Faithful

∵

­c hapter 8

The Nobles Convert Writing in 1962, the Polish essayist Stanisław Cat-Mackiewicz (1896-​1966) recalled from his youth the old Lithuanian folk tale of the conversion of Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Red to Calvinism some 400 years before. Allegedly, after his victory over Muscovy forces in Ułła (1564), the duke went to Częstochowa in Poland to render thanks to the Black Madonna there. Hoping to capitalize on his generosity, [T]‌he Pauline [monks] showed him a man possessed by the devil, which they then proceed to exorcise from him, in which they succeeded splendidly. Unfortunately, [the Duke] began to suspect something, and ordered that man to be presented to him; he found out that it was a comedy, and not a real miracle. The man was perfectly healthy, and only on the monks’ bidding did he pretend that the devil was inside him. The [Duke] was terribly offended. He did not like to be taken for a fool, and immediately declared that he accepted his cousin Mikołaj’s the Black’s faith and abjured the Catholic religion.1 Opening windows into human souls is never an easy task and doing so 500 years later is an exercise fraught with difficulty. If contemporaries in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries looked for miracles and offered vivid anecdotes to explain a switch in religious loyalties, the past 100 years of historiography have tried to “rationalize” such activity, often reducing a conversion to Calvinism to a desire for a “cheap church”—​with the stress on the word “cheap” rather than “church.” Such conversions are portrayed as an excuse to avoid paying for any religious infrastructure.2 Another suggestion is that Calvinist theology and church structure were well suited to the democratic sentiments of Polish nobles—​ignoring the fact that, in many countries, Calvinism’s alleged democracy was something that repelled rather than attracted the nobility to it.3

1 S. Mackiewicz, Dom Radziwiłłów (Warszawa: 1990), 66. 2 J. Wijaczka, “The Reformation in sixteenth-​century Poland: a success story or a failure?,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 17 (2015): 22. 3 R. G. Asch, “European nobilities and the Reformation,” in Rublack, Oxford Handbook, 565–​ 582; G. Schramm, Der Polnische Adel und die Reformation 1548–​1607 (Wiesbaden: 1965).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_009

166 

Chapter 8

Thus, we are left with explanations suggesting that Calvinism was embraced for a variety of practical reasons other than genuine religious conviction. For many Polish historians—​especially those sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church—​the only legitimate proof of Calvinist religious conviction was a nobleman’s attendance at Reformed synods. If an individual ceased attending (no matter the reason) or, indeed, if he had never attended a single synod at all, he is automatically assumed to have been “tepid in his faith” and “may have possibly converted to Catholicism.”4 Often, the lack of any evidence for such a conversion is construed to be proof thereof. Historians who are able to identify and acknowledge Calvinist faith and piety among the Commonwealth’s Reformed are few.5 In this section, I do not argue that all nobles who embraced Protestantism were lay incarnations of John Calvin. However, I  challenge the notion that economics, politics, or a combination of both factors was the principal reason underlying conversion. Motivations doubtless varied from individual to individual. Instead, I  describe the various mechanisms of conversion to Calvinism in the 1560s and 1570s, details of how some nobles left the Reformed fold in subsequent decades, and examine how others stayed on for generations despite the fact that being Reformed was neither fashionable nor, indeed, cheap. Let us first consider the case of Jakub Ostroróg and his conversion to the Czech Brethren in 1553. Around 1551, he turned the church in his private town of Ostroróg over to Protestant minister (and ex-​Catholic priest) Felix Cruciger. According to a legend that an apologist of the Czech Brethern recorded a century later, Ostroróg was entertaining Catholic guests one day in 1553 when he was told that his wife and sisters were listening to the Brethren senior Jerzy Izrael preach in their quarters. Incited by his guests to put an end to such gatherings, Ostroróg entered the ladies’ room armed with a whip to chase the preacher out. The senior calmly told the magnate to take a seat, while another minister continued his sermon and service. Allegedly, Ostroróg admitted later that he was possessed by such a fear of God that had the senior told him to sit under a bench, he would have obeyed. Later the same year, Ostroróg replaced

4 Classic examples: J. Dzięgielewski, Zygmunt Niszczycki (zm. 1621), PSB, vol. 23 (1978), 138–​140; D. Chłapowski, Potworowscy. Kronika rodzinna (Warszawa: 2002), 9; Mikołaj Rey (1505–​1569), PSB, vol. 31 (1988), 196–​203. 5 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 61, 140, 199, 28; W.  Kriegseisen, “Autonomia jednostki a wolność sumienia. Problem konwersji w nowożytnej Rzeczpospolitej,” in Autonomia jednostki w Europie i Polsce: od XVII do XX wieku (Warszawa: 2011), 34–​35.

The Nobles Convert

167

Cruciger with Brethren preachers and he, his entire family and household converted to the Brethren Church.6 This anecdote has probably as much truth to it as that of Radziwiłł the Red’s conversion. But it does tell us that Ostroróg and his household were genuinely searching for authentic religious truth. His sister Katarzyna’s testimony (Chapter 12) is evidence of such religious craving. Whatever the exact circumstances of his conversion, Ostroróg became a devout member of the Brethren and a man of great personal piety whose faith informed both his attitude toward the conversion of his subjects as well as political issues like the unhappy royal marriage of Zygmunt ii August and Catherine of Austria (1533–​1572). He was not alone. Despite the drama of expelling the Pauline monks from Pińczów in 1551, Mikołaj Oleśnicki proved in later years his dedication to the Protestant cause, even if he actually attended only a handful of synods. The castellan Jan Lanckoroński made sure that the citizens of his Wodzisław converted to Calvinism. The description of the death of Duchess Elżbieta Radziwiłł, as well as the copious correspondence with Calvin and other theologians, testify to the deep Protestant personal faith of Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black and his wife. Magnates like Hieronim Ossoliński, Stanisław Myszkowski and Piotr Zborowski were very heavy-​handed in how they governed their new Church, but that does not undermine their genuine dedication to the new faith and their labors on its behalf during the Sejms.7 The conversion anecdotes of Ostroróg and Radziwiłł the Red point to two other important mechanisms of how Calvinism spread among the nobility: via family linkages, and via the influence of fellow nobility. Ostroróg was married to Barbara of the Stadnicki family from Lesser Poland. Her brother, Stanisław, was an early Calvinist convert, and later the protector of Stancaro. One of Ostroróg’s sisters, Elżbieta, was married to Bartłomiej Żeleński (d.1580), a nobleman in the Sandomir palatine, and their descendants remained Calvinist until the 1830s.8 Tracing the exact timeline of conversions is impossible. We can only point to networks where Protestantism spread from the 1550s through the 1570s. The Oleśnicki family was related by marriage to the Orzechowski, Podlodowski,

6 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce, 24; M. Topolska, Jakub Ostroróg (ok.1516–​1568), PSB, vol. 24 (1979), 500–​502. 7 I. Kaniewska, Hieronim Ossoliński (zm. między 1575 a 1576), PSB, vol. 24 (1979), 396–​399; H. Kowalska, Mikołaj Oleśnicki (zm.1556/​1557), PSB, vol. 23 (1978), 768–​771; eadem, Stanisław Myszkowski (zm. 1570), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 394–​399. 8 Z. Pierzyk, Stanisław Matuesz Stadnicki (zm.ok.1563), PSB, vol. 51 (2002), 421–​425; Z. Sroczyński, Żeleńscy (Warszawa: 1997), 25, 54.

168 

Chapter 8

Siennicki, Spinek, Słupecki, Suchodolski, Męciński, and other middle-​noble families. All of them embraced Protestantism in the 1550s and 1560s and helped disseminate it through Lesser Poland. The Palczowski and Gierałtowski Calvinist families in the Oświęcim area were closely related not just to each other, but also to the Reformed Pieniążek and Myszkowski families in the Cracow palatine. The daughters of the Calvinist-​inclined chancellor Dembiński were married to Stanisław Szafraniec, Andrzej Rej (d. 1602), son of the Calvinist poet and theologian, and other Reformed noblemen. Yet, it is difficult to ascertain exactly who the first person was to bring Calvinism into the family, who influenced whom, and in what order.9 These family networks provided avenues for exposure to the Protestant ideas of other nobles in the area. After a critical mass was reached in the 1560s, some nobles converted because of their Reformed neighbors: the sisters of the chancellor Jan Zamoyski remained Calvinist and married Protestant nobles because their neighbors and family connections were mostly Reformed. Zamoyski’s first wife, Anna Ossolińska, whom he wed after his conversion to Catholicism, was (and remained) a Calvinist. They married because the nobles he grew up with and lived next to were predominantly Protestant—​simply put, in his milieu in the late 1560s a Catholic wife would be hard to find. In fact, Zamoyski’s first three wives were all Calvinist with only the fourth, whom he married in 1592, being a cradle Roman Catholic. The conversion of the magnates also had a domino effect on the conversion of not just their relatives, but also their clients and their respective families. Ostroróg’s joining of the Czech Brethren Church was followed shortly by that of his fellow magnates Jan Krotoski, Jan Tomicki, and Łukasz Górka. The latter two later left for Lutheranism, but Krotoski and Ostroróg ensured that Brethren in Lesser Poland secured multiple converts from middle and lesser nobles. Ostroróg’s friend, Wojciech Marszewski (d. c. 1573), not only became an active Reformed parliamentarian, but was also a pious and generous benefactor of the Brethren in his estates.10 Marszewski married into the Cerekwicki family, who were in turn related to the Grudzińskis, both of which converted to the Brethren. We can observe a mixture of personal piety, magnate influence, and familial and political connections, all of which together could have catalyzed a 9

10

K. Bibrzycki, Jan Palczowski (ok. 1507–​1565), PSB, vol. 25 (1980), 61–​62; M. Pawelec, “Szlachecki patronat wobec kalwińskiego zboru w Kozach w XVI-​XVII wieku” in: ed. B. Tondera, Mikołaj Rej i dziedzictwo reformacji w Polsce, (Kraków: 2006), 113–​125; A. Tomczak, Walenty Dembiński kanclerz egzekucji (ok. 1504–​1584) (Toruń: 1963), 144–​145,150–​151. J. Dworzaczkowa, Jan Krotoski (zm. 1577), PSB, vol. 15 (1970), 344–​345; Wojciech Marszewski (zm. ok. 1573), PSB, vol. 20 (1975), 76–​77.

The Nobles Convert

169

conversion. Deciding which one of these factors was dominant is, in my opinion, close to impossible. Yet, the dedication of these men and women to the new faith throughout most of their lives tells us that genuine Reformed piety was important and should not be overlooked.11 In Lithuania, the conversion of the Radziwiłł family to Calvinism brought about not only the conversion of their magnate relatives—​Kiszka and others—​ but also of scores of middle and lesser nobles connected to them by bonds of loyalty, friendship, or political alliances: Abramowicz, Chodkiewicz, Dorohostajski, Drucki-​Sokoliński, Hołowczyński, Hlebowicz, Pac, Sapieha, Szemiot, Talwosz, Zawisza, Zenowicz, and many others. By the 1570s, the senatorial elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had become the most thoroughly Protestantized group in the Commonwealth and remained so until the mid-​1590s. When the Roman Catholic convert Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Orphan married a Calvinist bride in 1584, he dismissed Jesuit objections to marrying a “heretic,” by pointing out that there were simply no Catholic families of his rank in the Grand Duchy. Radziwiłł the Black and Red’s embrace of Protestantism meant that scores of lesser nobles converted to Calvinism as well. In Żmudź, probably the majority of nobles became Calvinist, as did a substantial number around Vilnius or Witebsk.12 The same pattern, to a lesser degree, occurred in Lesser Poland, where the conversion of the Bonar, Myszkowski, Ossoliński, Szafraniec, and Zborowski families precipitated the conversion of lesser nobility, i.e. their clients, relatives, neighbors, and friends. Again, while not all members of the Zborowski or Ossoliński families were impeccable examples of Calvinist piety, some indeed were: Przecław Ossoliński personally taught his serfs the principles of the Reformed religion and converted a number of them. Szafraniec was deeply religious, as were his extended family (Rzeszowski, Kreza, Koścień etc), neighbors, and minor noble clients. However, a magnate’s faith did not automatically predetermine that of his noble clients. Radziwiłł or Ossoliński may have introduced a nobleman to Calvinism, but such an introduction did not always entail conversion. And even more, a conversion at a magnate’s court does not automatically mean it was done for political or economic reasons. Take the example of the Kwilecki family: In the mid-​sixteenth century, they arrived at the court of Radziwiłł the Black in the Grand Duchy, where they converted to Calvinism. In 1577, upon his return to the ancestral home in Kwilicz, Greater Poland, Jan Kwilecki turned over 11 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 25. 12 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 106–​126; H. Lulewicz, “Skład wyznaniowy senatorów świeckich Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego za panowania Wazów,” PH 68 (1977): 425–​445.

170 

Chapter 8

the church there to the Brethren. His family stayed Reformed for four generations until the “Deluge.” Magnate favor may account for the family’s conversion in Lithuania, but it does not explain why they remained Calvinist in a different province and long after their links with the Radziwiłłs had ceased. The minor Lithuanian noble from around Nowogródek, Teodor Jewłaszewski (1546–​1617) hailed from an Eastern Orthodox family, but converted to Calvinism around 1565, perhaps at the court of the Chodkiewicz family. He remained a Calvinist for the rest of his life, even after Jan Chodkiewicz (1537–​1579) converted to Catholicism in 1572. Writing around 1604, Jewłaszewski recalled with fondness “those days when difference in faith made no difference in friendly love” and the opportunity in 1588 to dine and converse with the servants of the future pope Clement viii (1536–​1506) when the latter was a nuncio in the Commonwealth.13 A significant factor influencing conversions to Protestantism were foreign studies and travels abroad of the nobility in the 1540s and 1550s. Despite repeated mandates by Zygmunt I the Old against his subjects studying abroad at what he termed the Lutheran-​infested universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig, scores of nobles studied there. From the 1550s, they also studied at the Lutheran University of Königsberg, which, curiously, never made it onto the proscribed list. Even after Wittenberg and Leipzig declined in popularity in the 1570s, Protestant academies in Strasbourg, Geneva, Heidelberg, and especially Basel proved influential in attracting nobles to the idea of Protestantism, and from the 1570s onwards, specifically to Reformed Protestantism. Calvin encouraged the widowed noblewoman Agnieszka Dłuska to send her sons to Swiss Protestant universities to strengthen their faith. Even those nobles who did not study abroad were often exposed to its teachings while visiting Germany, the Bohemia, or even France. The conversion of the Krokowski family to Calvinism is traced to their ancestor Reinhold serving under King Henry iv of France during the French Wars of Religion.14 Foreign university influence was especially strong with the Eastern Orthodox nobility and magnates of the Commonwealth. Deprived of any university or reputable Orthodox institution of higher learning in the mid-​sixteenth century, they sent their sons to Protestant academies. This often resulted in their conversion to Calvinism. Hieronim Chodkiewicz (d. 1561), castellan of Vilnius, 13

Pamiętnik Teodora Jewłaszewskiego nowogrodzkiego podsędka 1546–​1604, (R. Fredlejn: Warszawa: 1860), 12–​13. 14 Barycz, Mikołaj Dłuski, PSB, 195–​197; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 491–​492; M. Sławoszewska, Reinhold Krokowski (1536–​1599), PSB, vol. 15 (1970), 316–​317; W.  Urban, “Tendencje reformacyjne wśród szlachty i innych świeckich (poza Krakowem),” in Et Haec, 17–​24.

The Nobles Convert

171

was an elderly man when he became Protestant in the mid-​1550s. The exact circumstances of his conversion are not known; he was exposed to Protestantism during his many trips abroad as a diplomat, but his son, Jan (1537–​1579), whom he sent to study at the Lutheran University of Königsberg, could also have influenced his father. Around the time the Chodkiewicz family converted to Calvinism, their cousins, the Szemet (Szemioth) family, did likewise, as indeed did most of the castellan’s sons-​in-​law. For many Ruthenian and Eastern Orthodox families, the route of becoming “Westernized” began at Constantinople in the first generation, through Geneva or Basel for the following one or two generations, only to end up eventually on the banks of the Tiber by the 1620s and 1630s. The scale of Orthodox contacts with Protestant educational institutions in the Commonwealth and abroad, as well as their Protestant clientele, could account for the unusually large number of Calvinist-​Orthodox mixed families from the 1600s until the 1630s.15 Two important factors are missing from accounts of the conversion of nobles in the Commonwealth. First, the influence of the university in Cracow, and second, any influence of the royal Jagiellon court. Cracow University was in serious decline by the 1550s. Though perhaps not as stalwartly Catholic and heterodox as historians have claimed, it was never a hotbed of Protestant ideas or theology in the same ways other universities in other realms may have been. And while some of its alumni (and even staff) did join the Reformation movement, the university remained both Roman Catholic and intellectually irrelevant. If anything, its conservatism and educational decline boosted Protestantism by having nobles send their sons to study at superior, Protestant, academies abroad.16 A more important “missing influence” in spreading the Reformation was that of the royal court. Even while governing as the “young king” in Vilnius, where he had a reputation for religious forbearance and lack of Catholic orthodoxy, Zygmunt ii August never became Protestant, even when many of his chaplains and courtiers did. True, he did not withhold royal favor from Protestants, but neither did he promote the cause within his realm. Zygmunt ii’s disinterest in theological matters personally, and his position as arbiter between religious factions, was as much helpful to the spread of Protestantism as it was a hindrance. Since ecclesiastical estates were never officially secularized, there 15 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 127–​133. 16 D. Machaj, “Zawsze wierny? Sytuacja wyznaniowa w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XVI i XVII wieku,” OiRwP 59 (2015):  95–​135. For a different view:  W. Urban, “Akademia Krakowska w dobie Reformacji i wczesnej Kontrreformacji” in ed. K.  Lepszy, Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–​1764, (Kraków: 1964), 274–​284.

172 

Chapter 8

was no pressure to convert to any particular religion during his reign. With his successors, this would change, and the power of royal disfavor could and did work to Protestant disadvantage. But in the 1550s and 1560s, the Jagiellonian royal court lacked interest in promoting any religious sentiment, Catholic or Protestant.17 Finally, it should be mentioned that for many, middle nobles and magnates alike, the choice between “Protestant” and “Catholic” was not a zero-​sum game. A  large group of nobles, so far underestimated by historians, vacillated between the two; some of them were leading figures in the realm. I call them the “religious politiques.”18 The palatine of Cracow, Stanisław Tęczyński (d. 1562), spent time at the Lutheran court in Königsberg, hosted a Calvinist church in his mansion in Lublin, and introduced Protestants into the Cracow city council. But at the same time, he described himself as a Catholic and resisted his son’s conversion to Calvinism when he sought to marry the son off to the Protestant daughter of Radziwiłł the Black. Tęczyński’s daughter, Katarzyna (1544–​ 1592), was a Catholic, but a flexible one, like her father. She was married first to an Eastern Orthodox magnate, Duke Jerzy Słucki (d. 1578), and took communion in both kinds—​a practice she gave up reluctantly under Jesuit pressure in the late 1570s. Her second husband was the Calvinist Duke Krzysztof i Radziwiłł the Thunderbolt. Her sons from the first marriage were raised Orthodox and sent to Protestant universities abroad, where they converted (briefly) to Protestantism. Her son from the second marriage, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł, was raised Calvinist, while her only daughter was Roman Catholic. Tęczyńskis’ Catholicism was anything but clear-​cut—​at least until the late 1570s.19 Another influential magnate, Spytek Wawrzyniec Jordan (1518–​1568), castellan of Cracow, was so eclectic in his religious convictions and practice that his denominational affiliation (if he had any) was a mystery even to his contemporaries. He corresponded with Calvin, who urged him to declare himself for the Reformation, but Jordan, while sharing many of Calvin’s theological positions, declined. On the other hand, he surrounded himself with Protestant nobles, loathed Catholic clergy, listened to heretical preachers, and together with his Calvinist wife took communion in both kinds from his Catholic chaplain. Their daughters married either Calvinists or Catholics and followed the religion of 17

For the most recent and most balanced appraisal of Zygmunt II August’s evolving religiosity see Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 360–​364, 609, 627–​629. 18 Ptaszyński in Reformacja calls them „Erasmians” based on their educational background, and similarity of views on church reform with Erasmus of Rotterdam. He gives them considerable attention throughout his excellent book. 19 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 97, 138.

The Nobles Convert

173

their spouses. Jordan’s Catholic contemporaries reassured themselves that he was a Catholic because he did not openly declare himself Protestant. This was good enough for his burial in a Catholic church but that low bar is problematic when attempting to appraise his religious convictions. Labeling him Catholic or Protestant oversimplifies his religious stance.20 Another example of a “religious politique” was the chancellor Walenty Dembiński (d. 1584). Historians, who favor a black-​and-​white perspective, classify him as a Catholic, since he died and was buried as one. But his life suggests a more complex picture. During the early decades, his sons and daughters received a Protestant education and upbringing. Until his very-​late third marriage, to the young and zealously Roman Catholic Barbara Gosławska c. 1566, his religious conviction would more properly be classified as undecided with pro-​Protestant sympathies. It was only his late-​in-​life matrimonial bliss that brought out his latent Roman Catholicism.21 The Catholicism of the powerful Jan Tarnowski (1488–​1561), castellan of Cracow, was also far from Catholic orthodoxy: he advocated for services in Polish, communion in both kinds, and clerical marriage, and he advised King Zygmunt ii August to call a national synod without the pope’s permission. Tarnowski corresponded with Calvin about church reform, until, annoyed by Calvin’s tone urging him to declare himself openly as Calvinist, Tarnowski broke off all contact.22 His son, Jan Krzysztof Tarnowski (d. 1567), became a Calvinist, while his daughter Zofia (d. 1570) remained Catholic even after she married the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Duke Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski (1527–​1608). Zofia agreed to raise her sons in their father’s religion, for which the Jesuits duly chastised her. Her daughters were raised Roman Catholic, but both married Protestants: one a Calvinist, another a Unitarian.23 There were other religious politiques too. This group disappeared in the late 1570s when it became virtually impossible to be officially Roman Catholic, have married priests say mass in Polish, and take communion in both kinds. But until then, many influential nobles and magnates tried to advocate some 20 A. Kamiński, Spytek Wawrzyniec Jordan (1518–​1568), vol. 11 (1965), 282–​283. 21 Tomczak, Walenty Dembiński, 144–​145, 150–​151. 22 K. Hartleb, “Stosunek hetmana Jana Tarnowskiego do reformy kościoła w XVI wieku i jej przedstawicieli,” KH 26 (1912):  249–​292; S.  Kot, “Jana Tarnowskiego zerwanie z Kalwinem,” RwP 1 (1921):  61–​67; M.  Liedke, “Bezowocne starania. Korespondencja Jana Kalwina z Zygmuntem II Augustem, Jakubem Uchańskim, Janem Tarnowskim i Mikołajem Radziwiłłem Czarnym,” in Chemperek, Ewangelicyzm, 17–​56; Ptaszyński, Reformacja, 560–​562. 23 A. K. Banach, “Konwersje protestantów na katolicyzm w Koronie w latach 1560–​1600,” Prace Historyczne 77 (1985): 32.

174 

Chapter 8

form of “political” settlement of religious controversies between Catholics and Protestants, and their presence and importance in the religious controversies of the 1550s and 1560s should not be forgotten.24 After having converted to Protestantism, the nobility’s involvement in church life varied. Attendance at Reformed church synods, which has been the traditional Polish yardstick to judge a noble’s Calvinist zeal, can be indicative but should not be determinative in such evaluations. Christianity has known millions of devout Christians who would not count synodal attendance as markers of or aides to their faith. Many of the Commonwealth’s nobles simply attended Reformed worship and donated to the maintenance of their pastor and a school, and their presence left little or no trace in the limited synodal records that have survived. For example, in 1582, during the visitation of the Reformed churches in the Lublin district, the visitors found in Przemysłów “the minister, and his patron and a few people, to God’s beloved glory, in the church.”25 The sight of the noble patron together with his minister and serfs at evening worship so delighted the guests that “we gave thanks to the Lord God that we found them busy at such holy things.”26 That said, this pious patron, Szymon Asmański, and his unnamed wife appear in the Lesser Poland’s Reformed Church records only once, as does the congregation. In 1591, in Żmudź, the nobleman Jan Grużewski (d. 1609), who converted to Calvinism during his service to Radziwiłł the Black, gave the church in his estate of Kielmy for Reformed worship and provided generously for the pastor and a school. His last days were spent in a protracted legal battle, trying to save the Kielmy church from being returned to the Catholics. When he lost, on his deathbed, he obliged his wife and son to built a new Reformed church edifice, parsonage, school, and an almshouse—​which they did. Neither Grużewski nor Asmański are known to have ever attended a single Reformed synod.27 On the other hand, some men did enjoy attending synods, and did so diligently, even presiding over them many times:  Adam Talwosz (d. 1628), Marcin Gorski (d. 1632), Zbigniew Gorajski (1596–​1655), Władysław Leszczyński (d. c. 1661), and others.28 Religious fervor could vary with time like with Jan Dulski (d. 1590), castellan of Chełmno. He was brought up a Protestant, but according to the chancellor 24 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 97–​98. 25 asr iii, 66. 26 Ibid., 66–​67. 27 Grużewski, Kościół, 1–​90. 28 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 194–​195; D.  Kupisz, Zbigniew Gorajski, (Warszawa:  2000), passim.

The Nobles Convert

175

Zamoyski, he did not attend Protestant synods, worship, partake of Protestant sacraments, or pay for Protestant ministers in his estates, and he was aloof from the larger Protestant party in Parliament. What exactly made him a Protestant is a bit of a puzzle, as is determining whether he was a very lapsed Lutheran or a very lapsed Calvinist. But Zamoyski’s description of Dulski’s religious persuasion was slanted, if not outright dishonest. In 1582, on the occasion of his marriage to Zamoyski’s Calvinist niece, Elżbieta Oleśnicka (d. 1583), the chancellor and two Jesuits tried aggressively (aggressos)—​and unsuccessfully—​to convert Dulski. He refused, objecting to the Catholic practice of taking communion in one kind. If Dulski did not partake of Protestant communion, as Zamoyski had claimed, then it would surely not be the stumbling block that prevented his conversion. Perhaps the chancellor was belittling Dulski’s Protestant faith, who, while clearly not the most involved church member, held some of its teachings closely enough to resist pressure to convert.29 The religious diversity already prevalent in Poland, followed by the Unitarian schism of 1565, provided for a remarkable religious fluidity, often within one family, a situation that endured until the 1620s. The four marriages of Duke Krzysztof i Radziwiłł the Thunderbolt and those of his children illustrate this very well. He first married the Roman Catholic Anna Sobek (d. 1578)  whom he converted to Calvinism. After her death, he married the Roman Catholic Duchess Katarzyna Ostrogska (d. 1579). Radziwiłł’s third marriage was to another Roman Catholic, Katarzyna Tęczyńska (see above). Fourth, he married the Catholic sister of his second wife, Duchess Elżbieta Ostrogska (d. 1599), widowed by her Unitarian husband, Jan Kiszka (d. 1592). Radziwiłł had three children who reached adult life: His daughter, Elżbieta (1588–​1611), was Catholic after her mother and married the ex-​Calvinist Lew Sapieha (see below). Radziwiłł’s two sons were both Calvinist: the oldest, Duke Janusz i, married first Duchess Zofia Olekowicz Słucka (1585–​1612), who was herself Eastern Orthodox, and then the Lutheran Princess Elizabeth Sophia Hohenzollern (1589–​ 1629). Only the youngest son, Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł (1585–​1640), married a Calvinist—​Anna Kiszka (d. 1642).30 Religious diversity was especially prevalent among the middle nobility in Lesser Poland, where in some cases it continued until the mid-​seventeenth century. The Orzechowski family provides an ideal example of such dynamics over five generations. The first Protestant in the family was Jan (d. 1567), castellan of Chełm. He died before he could declare himself Calvinist or Unitarian,

29 mpv, vol. 5, 392; K. Lepszy, Jan Dulski (zm. 1590), PSB, vol. 5 (1939–​1946), 461–​462. 30 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 81–​82; Liedke, Od prawosławia, 138.

176 

Chapter 8

but his son, Paweł (c. 1550–​1612), chose the Polish Brethren. Paweł Orzechowski was married twice; his first wife was most likely a Unitarian, while his second wife, Elżbieta Oleśnicka, was Calvinist—​their daughters were all Calvinists. Paweł’s two sons’ religious paths diverged: Stanisław (d. c. 1660) remained a Unitarian but married a Calvinist, Anna Ostroróg, while Paweł the Younger (d. 1632) converted to Calvinism and married into the Calvinist Słupecki family. Of the children of Stanisław and Anna Ostroróg, the sons were Unitarian, one daughter converted to Catholicism and became a nun, while another, Alexandra Chrząstowska (d. c. 1677), converted in 1660 to Calvinism. Paweł the Younger’s son, Bogusław Orzechowski (c. 1626–​1694), was an active politician and deputy to the Sejm, as well as a generous benefactor of the Lesser Reformed Church. His son, Teodor Konstanty Orzechowski (d. 1730), was, like his ancestors, a zealous defender of Calvinists’ political rights. He, his son, and son-​in-​ law converted to Catholicism around 1727, paradoxically to safeguard the existence of the Reformed church in their estate of Bełżyce from Catholic lawsuits trying to close it down. The women of the family remained Calvinist despite their husbands’ conversions, and some of their descendants are still Reformed to this day.31 The Sieniuta family in the palatine of Wołyń went back and forth between Calvinism and Unitarianism for four generations right up to the 1648 Chmielnicki Rising.32 In Greater Poland, which lacked a larger Unitarian presence, the diversity was in mixed Catholic-​Lutheran-​Brethren variations, though the Szlichtyng family had Lutheran, Brethren, and Unitarian branches.33 With the sunset of the first generation of Reformed leaders around 1570, the tide began to turn, and we can see a series of converts from Calvinism to Roman Catholicism. What is interesting is that the very same factors that led nobles to embrace Calvinism a generation before led them to Catholicism. 31 Wajsblum, Ex regestro, 195–​197; idem, Piotr Chrząstowski (zm.1686), PSB, vol. 3 (1937), 474–​475; S. Tworek, Paweł Orzechowski (zm. 1612), PSB, vol. 24, (1979), 283–​284; Paweł Orzechowski młodszy (zm. 1632), PSB, vol. 24 (1979), 284–​285; idem, Paweł Bogusław Orzechowski (ok. 1626–​1694), PSB, vol. 24 (1979), 285–​286; idem, Teodor Bogusław Orzechowski (zm.1730), PSB, vol. 24 (1979), 295–​296; T.  Lenczewski, Russoccy herbu Zadora. Zarys monografii rodu (Warszawa:  2005), 69–​ 70; A.  Sajkowski, Bogusław Niezabitowski (zm.1739), PSB, vol. 23 (1978), 97. 32 J. Tazbir, Abraham Sieniuta (1587–​1632), PSB, vol. 37 (1996), 195–​196; idem, Paweł Krzysztof Sieniuta (1589–​1640), PSB, vol. 37 (1996), 196–​197; idem, Piotr Sieniuta (1616–​1648), PSB, vol. 37 (1996), 197–​199. 33 W. Dworzaczek, Szlichtyngowie w Polsce. Szkic genealogiczno-​ historyczny (Warszawa: 1938); M. Ptaszyński, Jan Jerzy Szlichtyng (1597–​1658), PSB, vol. 48, (2012–​ 2013), 390–​395; idem, Jonasz Szlichtyng (1592–​1661), PSB, vol. 48, (2012–​2013), 398–​402.

The Nobles Convert

177

Personal faith continued to be an important factor. Catholic sources provide us with a series of miracles that allegedly proved to ‘heretics’ the truth of the Roman Catholic faith in all its Tridentine glory. Wacław Leszczyński (d. 1628) converted to Catholicism in 1600 after he passed a Catholic church on horseback—​allegedly, his hat miraculously lifted from his head to honor the blessed sacrament in the church and then equally miraculously fell back. The eldest daughter of Radziwiłł the Black, Elżbieta Mielecka (1550–​1591), conspired to have the Jesuit chaplain of her freshly converted husband Mikołaj Mielecki (d. 1585) killed while he crossed a secretly damaged bridge. The Jesuit miraculously survived, which, allegedly, proved to the conniving aristocrat the truth of Roman Catholicism and the futility of heresy. In fact, we know that Elżbieta Mielecka had a long religious odyssey: Raised a Calvinist, she became a Unitarian, then embraced a form of it very close to Judaism, only finally to fall into the bosom of Tridentine Roman Catholicism. Her conversion was a product of many years of serious religious inquiry (she read scripture in Greek and Hebrew), rather than of a miracle of a bridge not collapsing under a Jesuit on horseback.34 Another anecdote pertains to the conversion of Lew Sapieha (1557–​1633) to Catholicism in 1586. One Sunday morning, after a night of heavy drinking and while intoxicated, he met a Protestant minister who insisted that he should partake of communion, because “faith alone counts.” Despite being under the influence, Sapieha was so appalled by the flippant pastor offering holy communion like candy to inebriated passers-​by that he resolved (in a miraculous instant of lucidity and sobriety) to “abjure heresy.” The truth is rather more prosaic: We have a letter from Sapieha himself where he describes to his Calvinist brother-​in-​law Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł why he converted. Brought up Eastern Orthodox, he first became Calvinist, and then a Unitarian. Studies at Protestant universities full of theological squabbles, instead of strengthening his faith, drove him nearly to atheism. In the end, after much anguish and soul-​ searching he chose the Tridentine Catholicism, which, unlike Protestantism, gave him simple and unchanging answers to his theological dilemmas. Internal theological squabbles of the Protestants were also given as reasons for converting to Catholicism by Łaski’s ruffian nephew, Olbracht Łaski (1536–​1605), who published his rationale in two tracts that were quite scathing to Calvinists.35 34 35

mpv, vol. 4, 259, 485; Banach, “Konwersje,” 31–​32; H.  Kowalska, Mikołaj Mielecki (zm.1585), PSB, vol. 20 (1975), 759–​765. K. Tyszkowski, “Przejście Lwa Sapiehy na Katolicyzm w 1586 r.,” RwP 2 (1922), 198–​203; Liedke, Od prawosławia, 110–​111; H. Lulewicz, Lew Sapieha (1557–​1633), PSB, vol. 35 (1994), 84–​104; R. Żelewski, Olbracht Łaski (1536–​1605), PSB, vol. 18 (1973), 246.

178 

Chapter 8

The mid-​1560s and the 1570s saw the conversion of several sons of the main leaders of the Reformed movement, often after they had been exposed to the diversity of the Protestant world and chose Roman Catholicism instead. Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Orphan started to develop doubts about the truth of Calvinism during his studies in Protestant academies in Germany and Switzerland. Together with his mentor (who had secretly decided to convert to Catholicism), and thanks to the guidance of Jesuits and papal nuncios, he finalized his conversion to Roman Catholicism in the summer of 1566 while in Rome. Years later he claimed that what finally convinced him was the piety Romans showed to the holy relics. Theological discussions and veneration of relics were probably not the only reasons he converted. We know that, while in Rome not busy adoring relics, he contracted syphilis. Profligate living while undergoing a profound religious conversion at the same time is nothing new, and Radziwiłł the Orphan’s subsequent life demonstrated that his conversion was as genuine and enduring as the health consequences of his visit to Rome. Years later, members of the Calvinist line of the Radziwiłł family would be barred from visiting Rome for fear of being exposed there to “popery,” if not other things as well. While at the Protestant academy in Strasbourg, chancellor Jan Zamoyski decided to both study in Padua and convert to Catholicism. Young men from the Firlej, Leszczyński, Myszkowski, Ossoliński, Tomicki, and other families converted in the 1560s and 1570s to Catholicism, signaling a reversal of fortunes for the Protestant cause in the Commonwealth.36 Family and clientele ties once again were avenues of religious change. Following his return to the Commonwealth, Radziwiłł the Orphan persuaded his three younger brothers to convert to Catholicism also.37 This signaled the beginning of the revival of Roman Catholicism in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In 1584, Radziwiłł the Orphan married a Calvinist, Princess Elżbieta Wiśniowiecka (1569–​1596). Two years later under his influence, she converted to Roman Catholicism, as did her mother. They both then successfully worked on converting Elżbieta’s three sisters. One of them, Hanna Sapieha (d. c. 1595), then brought about the conversion of her Eastern Orthodox husband, Mikołaj Sapieha (d. 1599). Another, Zofia (1569–​1619), was later influential in converting her husband, Jan Pac (d. 1610), from Calvinism. The third sister, Aleksandra (d. 36 37

Banach, “Konwersje,” 25–​29; Kempa, Mikołaj Krzysztof, 39–​43. H. Lulewicz, Albrycht Radziwiłł (1558–​1592), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 135–​140; idem, Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł zwany Sierotką (1549–​1616), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 349–​361; Stanisław Radziwiłł (1559–​1599), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 363–​367; W. Müller, Jerzy Radziwiłł (1556–​ 1600), PSB, “vol. 30 (1987)” 229–​234.

The Nobles Convert

179

1616), converted her husband Duke Jerzy Czartoryski (d. 1626) to Catholicism from Orthodoxy.38 After Mikołaj Hlebowicz (d. 1632) converted to Catholicsim, his poorer cousin Krzystof Chrapowicki tried to remove his sons from Hlebowicz’s court, fearing they would follow their patron and forsake Calvinism—​as indeed did happen with three of his five sons.39 In Lesser Poland, the bishop of Kraków and chancellor Piotr Myszkowski (1505–​1591) had been for many years the sole Roman Catholic holdout in an ardent Calvinist family. However, after the death of his brother and cousins, he steered his nephews into converting to Catholicism in the 1570s and 1580s, effectively wiping out Protestantism among the Myszkowski family. This was as great a feat as his acquisition of Pińczów in 1586, and the subsequent closing of the realm’s first Protestant congregation—​returning it to the Roman Catholic Church and his now-​zealously Roman Catholic heirs.40 Conversions of families to Catholicism could take decades, often creating joint Calvinist/​Catholic family lines. The Żółkiewski family of middle nobility converted to Calvinism in the 1560s and transformed the church in their estate into a Reformed one. On 4 August 1609, six Żółkiewski owners—​all sons of the Calvinist founders—​restored the same village church to the Catholic Church. However, only two of the signatories were Roman Catholic—​the others remained Reformed, and some refused to sign the deed in person. Calvinism among the Żółkiewskis lasted long after 1609: a son of one of the signatories, Aleksander Żółkiewski (d. c. 1669), is noted in 1638 as a patron of the Reformed church in Bończa in the Lublin district, and died a Calvinist. A son of another 1609 signatory, Stefan, attended the 1632 meeting of the Reformed nobility in Warsaw and later the 1644 Lublin district convocation in Sławatycze, and his sisters married Calvinist nobles. Thus, it appears that Calvinism lasted for at least 60 years and two generations after the loss of the church in the family seat.41 38 Kempa, Mikołaj Krzysztof, 126–​129, 143–​145; I.  Czamańska, Wiśniowieccy. Monografia Rodu (Poznań:  2007), 90–​100; J.  Wiśniewski, Jan Pac (zm. 1610), PSB, vol 24 (1979), 698–​699. 39 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 184. 40 U. Augustyniak, Zygmunt Myszkowski (ok.1562–​1615), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 404–​407; L. Hajdukiewicz and H. Kowalska, Piotr Myszkowski (ok. 1510–​1591), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 382–​390; R. Żelewski, Piotr Myszkowski (ok. 1560–​1601), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 392–​393. 41 boz 1183, fol. 67; J. Ternes, “Przyczynki do genealogii Żółkiewskich w XVI wieku,” Rocznik Lubelskiego Towarzystwa Genealogicznego 4 (2012):  88; W.  Bondyra, “Akta odnowienia parafii żółkiewskiej z 4 sierpnia 1609,” in ed. B. Kiełbasa, Żółkiewscy w ziemi chełmskiej (Żółkiewka: 2011), 65–​68; idem, “Ostatni przedstawiciele rodu Żółkiewskich w Żółkiewce w XVII i połowie XVIII wieku,” in Kiełbasa, Żółkiewscy, 71–​73, 77–​79.

180 

Chapter 8

Another family to see both a religious reversal and the creation of Calvinist and Roman Catholic lines was the Firlejs. The chancellor Jan Firlej (d. 1574) and his brother Andrzej (d. 1585) both died as Calvinists. Andrzej’s two daughters both married fellow Calvinists:  Dorota (d. 1591)—​Duke Stefan Zbarażki and Anna (d. 1588)—​Andrzej Leszczyński (1559–​1606). But in 1586, the widowed Dorota married Lew Sapieha, who was preparing to convert to Catholicism. Under his influence, she also converted. Three of chancellor Jan’s five sons—​ Mikołaj, Jan, and Piotr—​converted to Catholicism. The chancellor’s first wife remained Roman Catholic all her life, and he allowed her to bring up their daughter Anna (d. 1600) in her mother’s faith. In 1594, this Anna married the Calvinist Jan Zbigniew Ossoliński (1555–​1623). Within two years Ossoliński, son of one of Lesser Poland’s Calvinist leaders converted to his wife’s faith. Chancellor Firlej’s third and much younger wife, Barbara Mniszech, was also a devout Catholic. Their son, Henryk (1574–​1626) was baptized Reformed, but after his father’s death he was brought up Catholic by his mother and later became the Primate of Poland. Only one of the chancellor’s sons, Andrzej (d. 1609), castellan of Radom, remained faithful to the religion in which he was raised. His line of the family remained Calvinist for another three generations.42 Obviously, mixed Catholic-​Reformed marriages were often a vehicle of conversion. In 1577, chancellor Jan Zamoyski married the Calvinist daughter of Radziwiłł the Black, Krystyna (1560–​1580), as his second wife. He promised her uncle, Radziwiłł the Red, that he would respect her religion, but at the same time, he surreptitiously worked to have her converted, which indeed transpired a year later. The devoutly Calvinist Andrzej Leszczyński (1559–​1609) married in 1600 as his third wife, Zofia Opalińska (d. c. 1626), a Roman Catholic. He promised to respect her religion, which he did. Their three sons were baptized in his Reformed faith, but after Leszczyński’s death and despite the vehement objections of their stepbrother Rafał (1579–​1636), a.k.a. the “pope of Calvinists in Poland,” their mother raised them as Roman Catholics. One, Wacław (1605–​1666), later become the Roman Catholic Primate of Poland—​probably the only situation where a “Calvinist pope” was the brother of a Roman Catholic primate.43

42

S. Bodniak, Jan Firlej (ok.1521–​1574), PSB, vol. 7 (1948–​1958), 1–​6; W. Czapliński, Andrzej Firlej (zm.1649/​50), PSB, vol. 6 (1948), 474–​476; idem, Henryk Firlej (zm. 1626), PSB, vol. 6 (1948), 477–​478; K. Lepszy, Andrzej Firlej (zm.1585), PSB, vol. 6 (1948), 474–​475; idem, Andrzej Firlej (zm. 1609), PSB, vol. 6 (1948), 475–​476; idem, Mikołaj Firlej (zm.1588), PSB, 7 (1948–​1958), 10–​12; idem, Mikołaj Firlej (zm. 1601), PSB, vol. 7 (1948–​1958), 12–​15. 43 Dworzaczek, Andrzej Leszczyński (ok. 1559–​1606), PSB, 101–​103; M.  Sipayłło, Rafał Leszczyński (1579–​1636), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 135–​ 139; W.  Czapliński, Wacław Leszczyński (1605–​1666), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 149–​151.

The Nobles Convert

181

Even marriages with Calvinists could not guarantee that the family would remain Protestant. Jan Rozdrażewski (d. 1600), castellan of Kalisz, was a Czech Brethren member married to a Lutheran, Katarzyna Potulicka (d. 1613). However, her father and brothers converted to Catholicism in the late 1580s. Shortly before he died, Rozdrażewski finished building a monumental church for the Brethren in Krotoszyn, where he was laid to rest. Around 1603, the widow remarried a Catholic, converted, and gave the church over to her new co-​religionists. Her first husband’s epitaph remained in the now-​Catholic church, and their minor children were brought up Catholic. Only the eldest daughter, Anna (c. 1586–​c. 1629), remained Calvinist, probably because as an adult she was not so easily influenced. In Lesser Poland in 1580, the Calvinist Piotr Bużeński (1559–​1583) married his co-​religionist, Beata Myszkowska (1563–​1627), from one of the most prominent Calvinist families in that province. Shortly after his premature death, the young widow, whose brothers had all become Catholicis in the meantime (see above), herself converted and became a cloistered Carmelite nun.44 Following the death of her pious Calvinist husband Władysław Dorohostajski (1611–​1638), Elżbieta Samson-​Podbereska (d. 1646) married a Roman Catholic and converted to his religion. The Calvinist Radziwiłł relatives brought up Dorohostajski’s only daughter Zofia (1635–​1653), but following her marriage to a Roman Catholic, she too converted under her mother’s influence, closed the Reformed churches in her Wołyń estates and forced her subjects to convert as well.45 Mixed marriages often ended with (hitherto) Calvinist deathbed conversions to Roman Catholicism, a phenomenon extremely difficult to verify. How is one to parse what actually happened versus the wish of a Roman Catholic spouse and the priest at hand? Take the case of Hieronim Sieniawski (1519–​1582), palatine of Ruthenia, and a definitive Calvinist. His fourth and late marriage was to a young Roman Catholic, Jadwiga Tarło. Writing shortly after his death, the papal nuncio did not mention his deathbed conversion but did note that his wife was devoutly Catholic, and that his sisters converted shortly after his death, closing numerous Calvinist churches on their estates. The Sieniawski widow brought up their only son in her religion, and within a decade, the palatine’s two brothers and cousin 44

J. Dworzaczkowa and H. Kowalska, Jan Rozdrażewski (ok. 1543–​1600), PSB, vol. 32 (1991), 371–​373; idem, “Konwersje,” 91; H. Kowalska, Zygmunt Myszkowski (zm. 1577), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 403–​404; S. Leitgeber, Piotr Potulicki (zm.1606), PSB, vol. 28 (1984), 252–​255. 45 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 113–​ 138, 199–​ 200; U.  Kicińska, “Pobożność szlachcianki w świetle polskich drukowanych mów pogrzebowych w XVII wieku,” Folia Historica Cracoviensia 18 (2012): 233–​234.

182 

Chapter 8

all converted to Catholicism, bringing the Calvinist period of the Sieniawski family to an end. Shortly after, the Jesuits began proclaiming his deathbed conversion—​a “fact” repeated by historians to this day. The tale of his deathbed conversion allowed the family to build him a stunning tombstone in the (now) Roman Catholic family chapel in Brzeżany, which further buttressed the claim.46 Almost all the Calvinist Leszczyński men were reputed to have had deathbed conversions, even when they were buried in Calvinist churches with memorial sermons preached and printed by Reformed clergy. Radziwiłł the Black and his wife, who both died convinced Protestants, were given the brush of post-​mortem conversion. Radziwiłł the Orphan and his brother, cardinal Jerzy Radziwiłł (1556–​1600), attempted to have their parents reburied with Catholic ceremonies in the Vilnius Cathedral. This was too much even for Counter-​ Reformation, and the brothers had to settle for a memorial cenotaph, while their parents’ “heretical” bodies were buried in the Reformed church in Dubinki. The previously mentioned castellan Jan Dulski (d. 1590), who resisted the combined conversion attempts by the Jesuits and the chancellor Zamoyski, allegedly finally succumbed on his deathbed, surrounded by his fourth and much younger Roman Catholic wife (again) and Catholic daughters and sons-​ in-​law.47 One of the most notorious deathbed conversions occurred at the time of the 1660 Sejm in Warsaw. During its proceedings the stalwart Calvinist parliamentarian, Stanisław Chrząstowski, from Lesser Poland, fell gravely ill. Preparing for death, he summoned the Calvinist chaplain of Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł, and took from him Reformed communion. His approaching death piqued the interest of the local bishop, Wojciech Tolibowski. Summoning his personal guards he went to Chrząstowski’s residence, expelled his sons and servants, and as Protestants complained:  “[the] dying he confirmed, crossed, prayed, extra mentem being, without any speech or senses hostiam jam ultimum emittenti spiritum pushed in the mouth.”48 The dying Calvinist would appear to have been cognizant of what was being done to him: with his last breath he screamed in agony “Jesus Mary!” The bishop’s actions were outrageous, and the numerous Protestants present at the Sejm complained to the Queen Maria Ludwika Gonzaga (1611–​1667), 46

M. Plewczyński, Hieronim Sieniawski (1519–​1582), PSB, vol. 37 (1997/​1998), 119–​122; I.  Kaniewska, Prokop Sieniawski (zm. 1596), PSB, vol. 37 (1996), 145–​146; idem, Rafał Sieniawski (zm. 1592), PSB, vol. 37 (1996), 148–​149. 47 Dworzaczkowa, “Konwersje,” 92; Lepszy, Jan Dulski, PSB, 462. 48 Wajsblum, Ex regstro, 185.

The Nobles Convert

183

who prevailed on her husband to intervene. King Jan ii Kazimierz Waza reluctantly barred the bishop from any “popish ceremonies.” But the cleric was not about to let such a prized conversion slip from his hands. In the presence of the king, queen, and the whole royal court, Bishop Tolibowski publically swore that Chrząstowski “regretted Calvinism and he gave himself to the protection of the Holy Mother of God at his death.”49 After that creative interpretation of the scream, the monarch relented, and the “old heretic” was buried with a pompous funeral ceremony by four bishops and all the monastic orders in the Warsaw Cathedral.50 The most outrageous (and amusing) claim of conversion to Catholicism is that of a Brethren nobleman, Stefan Żychliński (d. 1643). While on this earth, he was a lifelong—​if problematic—​member of his denomination. Ostensibly true to the promises of scripture, a more glorious future awaited him after death. According to an eighteenth-​century Jesuit historian, Żychliński, after dying in the Calvinist faith and waiting for two months for a funeral (…) again came back to life and rose from the dead. He then lived for two years, not speaking to anyone, but with a sole Roman Catholic priest in whose presence he abjured [his] errors, and received the Holy Sacraments, he closed his life again in a Catholic manner. It is pitiful that his son (…) and others, despite having their eyes blinded by such a miracle, persisted in their Calvinist errors.51 It is worth pointing out that the same author is still quoted as reliable in cases of other Protestant conversions to Catholicism. Conversions could occur after a Protestant spouse’s death, when the surviving Catholic spouse reneged on earlier agreements about the children’s faith. In his will, Jarosz Jewłaszewski (1578–​1619) asked his Catholic wife to honor their children’s Reformed faith, and left bequests to the Reformed church in Nowogródek. The widow reneged on both wishes:  she was sued for the bequests in 1623 but the church was unable to stop her from turning the son, Kazimierz Ludwik (d. 1664) into a fervent Roman Catholic and an enemy of Calvinists.52

49 Ibid., 186. 50 Ibid., 184–​186; idem, Stanisław Chrząstowski (zm. 1660), PSB, vol. 3 (1937), 476. 51 K. Niesiecki, Herbarz Polski, (Lipsk: 1845), vol. 10, 198; K. Gorczyca, Żychlin koło Konina. Dzieje wsi i zboru (Warszawa: 1997), 49. 52 AS 1915, 75.

184 

Chapter 8

The Tribunals also often gave Calvinist children to Roman Catholic relatives to ensure their conversion and bypassed Protestant family members. Based on complaints from Reformed nobles beginning in the 1580s, we know this was a common phenomenon. In the mid-​1630s, two of the five Bolestraszycki brothers converted to Roman Catholicism while three stayed Calvinist. In 1639, the Calvinist Jan Bolestraszycki died leaving three orphaned daughters. To ensure their Protestant education, he appointed his Calvinist brother Krzysztof as their guardian. Another brother, Piotr, who was Catholic, wanted his nieces to convert, so he raided their house and seized the girls. Piotr underestimated his Reformed siblings, who, under the leadership of Samuel Bolestraszycki, gathered a considerable number of fellow Protestant nobles and servants, recaptured the residence and freed the nieces, ensuring their Calvinist education and marriages.53 Most of the time, though, it was the Roman Catholic party that won. Jakub Pszonka (1562–​1622) was a lay senior of the Lublin district of the Reformed Church. He was a tolerant man in both public and private life: he allowed a Unitarian congregation in his private town of Wysokie, was married to a Roman Catholic and raised his daughters in their mother’s religion. However, in his will he explicitly stated that he wanted his only son, Adam (1608–​1677), to be raised Reformed, and provided for Calvinist guardians to ensure that this would happen. But after his death, his Catholic sons-​in-​law seized the boy and, against the guardians’ protests, sent him to the Jesuits in Lublin, where the young man was promptly converted. The same fate befell the family of Jan Łaski himself: after his premature death, his youngest son, Samuel (c. 1553–​1611), was given to Roman Catholic relatives who raised him in their religion.54 The Calvinists were also guilty of this same conduct, although such cases were rare. The Catholic convert castellan of Vilnius, Jan Chodkiewicz, implored his Calvinist wife Krystyna Zborowska (d. 1589) not to force “my beloved children, both boys and girls, to any heretical sects contrary to the Roman Catholic and Apostolic church …”55 and asked the three Catholic guardians to remove the children in such an instance and give them a Catholic upbringing. The widow respected the wishes of her late husband regarding the sons, but at least two of their daughters grew up Protestant.56 53 Łoziński, Prawem, 501–​503. 54 W. Urban, Adam Pszonka (1608–​1677), PSB, vol. 29 (1986), 283–​284; idem, Jakub Pszonka (1562–​1622), PSB, vol. 29 (1986), 284–​286; S. Grzybowski and F. Mincer, Samuel Łaski (po 1553–​1611), PSB, vol. 18 (1973), 250–​253. 55 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 150. 56 Ibid., 149–​150.

The Nobles Convert

185

Of course, religious differences in mixed marriages were often respected too. In Lesser Poland, the Catholic nobleman Franciszek Rylski (d. 1604) married a Calvinist, Krystyna Płaza (d. 1623) She was able not only to keep her Reformed religion, but also to raise all eight of their children as Calvinists. When Feliks Słupecki (d. 1616), castellan of Lublin, converted to Catholicism in 1615, he also converted his two eldest sons with him. Shortly before he died, he implored his Calvinist wife, Barbara Leszczyńska, not to convert them back to Calvinism, a promise she kept—​but their daughters followed their mother’s Reformed religion, as did the two youngest sons. When the Calvinist Princess Katarzyna Radziwiłł (1614–​1674) married the Roman Catholic Jerzy Karol Hlebowicz (d. 1669) in 1640, he guaranteed her free exercise of her religion, and allowed her to raise their two daughters as Calvinists. In 1661, Anna Bużeńska received communion with her Calvinist daughter shortly before she died. Her son, a Roman Catholic priest, invited the Brethren senior Jan Bythner to lead his mother’s funeral.57 Both Catholics and Protestants recognized the role of mixed marriages in the process of converting the Calvinist spouses. At the end of the sixteenth century, the papal nuncio Malespina wrote: “Catholics are used to marrying heretics and vice versa, and behold almost always the Catholic man or woman converts the heretic man or woman.”58 Acknowledging that such marriages were forbidden by canon law, the nuncio admitted that bishops sometimes turned a blind eye to such cases, and advised his successor caution before forbidding such marriages. The Calvinists held an equally despondent assessment of such unions. The Reformed theologian Krzysztof Kraiński (1556–​1618), normally an advocate for moderation in matters of church discipline, did not mince his words when it came to mixed marriages. Writing about Calvinist men who let their daughters marry Catholic men, he exclaimed, “What foolishness to give your daughter to an idolater [Roman Catholic]. You have as much as killed her with your own hands, because willing or not, she will have to follow him to an idol [the Roman Catholic Church], and if she refuses, he will kiss her with his fist, will hit her with something heavy, will not permit her to [attend a Reformed] congregation.”59 Kraiński had equal disdain for Calvinist men marrying Roman Catholic women and claiming they would convert them to Protestantism:  “indeed, we see from many examples, that sooner a pagan [non-​Calvinist] wife will deceive her husband with tender words and 57

K. Chłapowski and H. Kowalska, Franciszek Rylski (zm. 1604), PSB, vol. 33 (1992), 493–​ 494; Dworzaczkowa, “Konwersje,” 94; Kot, “Słupeccy,” 25–​41. 58 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 200. 59 Jelińska, „Sarmacki,” 54.

186 

Chapter 8

sometimes by bad [marital] living at the instigation of priests, many of whom experienced it, than a faithful husband, will convince a pagan wife, obdurate and taught in idolatrous [Roman Catholic] or blasphemous [Unitarian] worship, [to convert to Calvinism].”60 Well aware of the circumstances surrounding deathbed conversions, Kraiński was merciless in pointing to what could happen to Calvinist spouses at the end of their lives:  “[he] calls for a minister, she summons him a monk, and when his strength is fleeing him, and when he feels little, they put a host in his mouth, and thus while she was unable to deceive him during his lifetime, she will at death make him an idolater.”61 Though more research has to be done on the matter, it seems that mixed marriages declined considerably after 1620s, and where they still occurred, they involved mainly Calvinists marrying Eastern Orthodox, rather than Catholics. The nobleman Teodor Jewłaszewski (1546–​1617) was initially the only Calvinist in his family: his siblings and parents remained Eastern Orthodox, and he helped his widowed father become the Orthodox bishop of Pińsk. Teodor’s wife, Hanna Bołtówna, was Eastern Orthodox too—​but their sons were brought up as Calvinists.62 Religiously mixed families—​noble or burgher—​often resorted to an accommodation where sons followed the religion of the father, and daughters the religion of the mother—​a practice that survived in the lands of the former Commonwealth until the twentieth century. Still, mixed marriages were frowned upon: In 1653, the Chęciny district synod demanded that anyone marrying a non-​Calvinist should be automatically excommunicated, but the provincial synod in Bełżyce refused. The synod simply ordered ministers to dissuade the faithful from such unions and forbade them to officiate at such ceremonies. These provisions were reaffirmed a year later during the provincial synod in Oksa. By the end of the seventeenth century, mixed marriages had disappeared almost entirely among the Reformed nobility.63 One of the main factors in Protestant noble conversion to Roman Catholicism was the influence of Jesuit education. Despite building their own education infrastructure, the Commonwealth’s Calvinist schools competed with the more numerous Jesuit schools, most of which provided free education. The Jesuits made a special effort to welcome Protestant and Orthodox students, guaranteeing them freedom of conscience. The “heretics” had only to listen to 60 Ibid., 55. 61 Ibid., 55. 62 Pamiętnik Teodora, 23–​24, 30–​31, 45. 63 Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 232, 244.

The Nobles Convert

187

Jesuit sermons, which were polemics against Protestant teachings. Bereft of hearing the other side, scores of young Protestant men completed their Jesuit education as Roman Catholic converts. Just how this process worked can be seen in the case of the family of Hieronim Gostomski (d. 1609) castellan of Nakło. Himself the son of a prominent Calvinist, Anzelm Gostomski (d. 1588), Hieronim hired a Protestant tutor for his son Jan (d. 1623). The tutor then convinced the magnate that in order to strengthen his son’s Calvinism he must learn the errors of Catholicism first, and this would best be done at a Jesuit school. Despite the suspicious logic, the father agreed. Naturally, the foreseeable came to pass: both the tutor and young Gostomski converted to Catholicism within less than a year. The father was furious, but the culprits talked him into embracing Catholicism as well. Hieronim Gostomski converted with much fanfare during the 1589 Sejm and was rewarded with the post of palatine of Poznań in 1592. For the rest of his life, he was a sworn enemy of Protestants, and a generous benefactor of the Jesuits. At the same time, his brother Stanisław Gostomski (d. 1598) remained a staunch Calvinist.64 The Reformed were slow to recognize the threat posed by Jesuit education and for decades worried more about schools run by the Unitarians, even though the number of converts from Calvinism to Unitarianism was negligible. In 1573, the synod in Cracow had already reissued provisions from a decade earlier that “children of Christian folks to blasphemous [Unitarian] or idolatrous [Roman Catholic] should not be sent.”65 In 1594, the Lublin district of the Reformed Church called on their faithful not to send their children to schools “of a different denomination” due to that fact that “youth leads to great depravities in religion.”66 Throughout the first half of the seventeenth century, the Reformed synods, especially in Lesser Poland, thundered at members who sent their sons to schools run by other denominations rather to their own Calvinist educational institutions. In 1618, the Lesser Poland provincial synod in Ożarów entreated its faithful to send their children to the new provincial school in Bełżyce under the pain of excommunication.67 This was widely ignored, and in 1621 the

64

A. Podraza, Anzelm Gostomski (ok. 1508–​1588), PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960), 362–​364; W. Dworzaczek, Hieronim Gostomski (zm. 1609), PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960) 364–​366; idem, Jan Gostomski (ok. 1576–​1623), PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960), 366–​367; K. Lepszy, Stanisław Gostomski (zm.1598), PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960), 366–​367. 65 asr iii, 10. 66 Ibid., 104. 67 Ibid., 401.

188 

Chapter 8

Cracow district reissued the proscription, singling out a number of nobles. The same synod remarked that they were sending their children to schools of other denominations “as if out of spite to God’s Church.”68 In 1625, the provincial synod gathered in Oksa and decided that enough was enough. Both lay members and pastors whose children were attending “adversary schools” were now liable to church discipline: first suspension from communion and, if they persisted, excommunication.69 The same provision was repeated at the provincial synods of 1627, 1629, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, and 1636, which shows just how ineffective it was. In 1629, it was decided that ministers who did not enforce church discipline towards obstinate patrons were to suffer the same penalties, but this was never enforced.70 Similarly, in the Grand Duchy in 1628, the synod called on the faithful to withdraw their children from non-​Calvinist schools and to send them to Reformed institutions—​perhaps hoping to boost the newly-​opened Słuck Gymnasium. A year later, that canon was repeated and explicitly included clergy, who, if they did not comply, were to be suspended without pay for twelve weeks.71 The 1613 convocation of the Brethren in Poznań identified the lack of their own schools as why “some to Arians, some to Jesuits give their children,”72 and decided to take up a collection for its own three schools in the hope they would draw the children back. The Reformed were better at avoiding Catholic universities and from travelling to countries like Italy. Visiting them could not only endanger a young man’s Calvinist faith, but also encourage “ungodly” habits in him. Perhaps alluding to the fact that both Radziwiłł the Orphan and his brother, cardinal Jerzy Radziwiłł, contracted syphilis during their stay in the eternal city, Kraiński wrote: “Oh, what evil do careless parents, who almost kill their children with their own hands, sending [them] to Italy, and specifically to Rome, where is the place of most vile idolatry and training place of all vices.”73 By the early 1600s, Protestants stopped attending Catholic universities, and concentrated their education on capitals of Calvinist learning like Heidelberg, Basel, Leiden, Franeker, Viadrina, and Saumur. For many Reformed families, sending children to Protestant universities abroad became the norm.74 68 Ibid., 428. 69 Ibid., 476. 70 Ibid., 506–​507, 533, 553–​554, 57. 71 AS 2011, 36, 49. 72 asr iv, 256–​257. 73 Jelińska, “Sarmacki,” 46. 74 Tworek, Działalność, 161–​163, 305–​310; M. Chachaj, “Edukacja synów, wnuków i prawnuków Mikołaja Reja,” in Kowalski, Mikołaj Rej, 257–​273.

The Nobles Convert

189

Finally, the last factor that influenced conversions to Roman Catholicism was the royal court. Beginning with King Stefan Batory, but especially under King Zygmunt iii Waza after 1591, the Polish royal court became a major driving force for conversion. Calvinists were sidelined and passed over for senatorial nominations until they promised to convert or made good on their vow. While the 1560s and 1570s saw a trickle of conversions, the first decade of the reign of Zygmunt iii witnessed a deluge of conversions and subsequent flourishing of their careers. Of the fifty-​three known Protestants he promoted to the Senate, twenty-​one of them were nominated before 1591, after which Reformed nominations visibly slowed. At the time of his death in 1632, Zygmunt iii, whose reign opened with at least 41 Protestant senators and almost exclusively Calvinist Grand Duchy at the senatorial rank, left it with six Protestants: five for the Crown, one for Livonia, and not a single one for the Grand Duchy.75 The British envoy Sir Thomas Roe was right when he observed, “By this meanes a greater mutation is wrought in the matter of religion than in France by the sword, in Italye by the Inquisition, or in England by pecuniarye laws” since, as he summarized, “honor and belly hath a great stroke in this world.”76 The power of the influence of the Waza royal court can be seen in the two lines of the Radziwiłł family. The Catholic convert sons of Radziwiłł the Black advanced in their careers swiftly throughout the reign of Zygmunt iii. At the same time, the monarch refused to advance to the Senate their Calvinist cousin, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł. The overdue nomination came from Władysław iv, in return for the duke’s support during the 1632 royal election. The same dynamic was repeated with Krzysztof ii’s son, Duke Janusz ii (1612–​ 1655). Władysław iv greatly enjoyed inebriated episodes with him, but unlike his Catholic cousins, Janusz ii had to wait until 1646 for his seat in the Senate. The last male representative of the Calvinist line, Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł (1620–​1669), never made it to the Senate at all. Similar instances occurred in other senatorial families:  Denhoff, Firlej, Sierakowski, Wołłowicz; Catholic members were promoted, the careers of Calvinists stalled.77

75

76 77

E. Barwiński, “Zygmunt III i dysydenci,” RwP 1 (1921): 51–​53; Banach, “Konwersje,” 33–​ 35; W. Dworzaczek, “Oblicze wyznaniowe senatu Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej w dobie kontrreformacji,” in ed. W. Dworzaczek, Muneria Literaria. Księga ku czci prof. Romana Pollaka (Poznań: 1962), 52–​56; Lulewicz, “Skład wyznaniowy,” 430–​435. Letters relating to the mission of Sir Thomas Roe to Gustavus Adolphus, 1629–​1630, ed. S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society: 1875), 56. T. Wasilewski, Bogusław Radziwiłł (1620–​1669), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 161–​172; idem, Janusz Radziwiłł (1612–​1655), PSB, vol. 30 (1987), 208–​215.

190 

Chapter 8

As with the preceding generations, conversions to Roman Catholicism were often due to a combination of many factors. Take the example of Krzysztof Zenowicz (c. 1540–​1614), palatine of Brześć Litewski. In his will, he made a resolute defense of his Calvinist faith and implored his widow and two children to stay steadfast in their “faithful evangelical” religion. Yet within a decade, they all had abandoned Calvinism. His wife, Fedora Wołłowicz (c. 1540–​1625), whom he earlier converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Calvinism, reverted to Uniate Catholicsm. Their son, Mikołaj Bogusław Zenowicz (d. 1621), converted to Catholicism in 1620 around the time he was promoted to the Senate by King Zygmunt iii, but also around the time he remarried to a Roman Catholic. The senatorial rank was either a reward for leaving, or an enticement to leave, Calvinism—​ but his second wife’s influence cannot be discounted. His sister, Zofia Zenowicz (d.  c.  1642), married Aleksander Słuszka (c. 1580–​1647). Both were Calvinists until 1620 when the Aleksander converted to Catholicism, which happily paralleled his promotion to the Senate. Shortly after, taking advantage of his wife’s illness, Słuszka convinced her to convert as well. This resulted, in their opinion, in her rapid healing and recovery in 1621. Both became ardent Catholics, closing Calvinist churches on their estates and supporting their new religion as generously as her late father had supported his beloved Calvinism.78 The same myriad of factors and motives can be seen with conversions of middle and lesser nobles. Krzysztof Czarniecki (1564–​1636) was born into a middle Calvinist noble family near the Nida River in Lesser Poland, where Protestant nobles and burghers abounded. He married a co-​religionist, Krystyna Rzeszowska, with whom he had eleven children. A loyal supporter of King Zygmunt iii Waza, Czarnecki’s relations with the Reformed Church weakened in the 1620s. At the same time, the Reformed Church began to collapse in the Nida area and his first wife died. He sent the majority of their ten sons to Jesuit schools where they all converted to Catholicism. In 1622, Krzysztof Czarniecki became an administrator of the Żywiec estates—​property of the devoutly Roman Catholic Queen Constance of Austria (1588–​1631). In 1627, he remarried to a Roman Catholic; he officially converted to Catholicism in 1634 at the age of seventy. All the factors that could influence his conversion are present here: economic incentives, family ties, royal pressure, and personal faith. But which one of these, if any, was dominant?79 78 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 113–​132; M.  Nagielski, Aleksander Słuszka (ok.1580–​1647), PSB, vol. 39 (1999), 134–​137; Liedke, Od prawosławia, 201. 79 A. Haratym, “Czarneccy w XVII wieku,” in ed. W.  Kowalski, Stefan Czarniecki:  żołnierz-​ obywatel-​polityk (Kielce: 1999), 159–​196; W. Czapliński, Stefan Czarniecki (1599–​1665), PSB, 4 (1938), 208–​211.

The Nobles Convert

191

The Reformed nobles reacted in different ways to these dynamics. While magnates had disappeared by the 1580s in Lesser Poland Protestant, many of the middle nobles remained faithful Calvinists for another two decades—​it was the Zebrzydowski’s Rokosz in 1606 that started to undermine that group. In Greater Poland, only two magnate families remained Brethren after the early 1600s—​the Leszczyńskis and Grudzińskis. In Lithuania, the process was somewhat delayed, but by the end of the 1620s, it too had caught up with the rest of the realm. In the 1620s and 1630s, the Reformed nobles started to show the strain of decades of political failures, anti-​Protestant tumults, and royal disfavor. If their grandparents had converted in the 1550s hoping for a “cheap church,” by 1620 remaining Calvinist had become quite an expensive enterprise. Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł may have been extremely pious and generous to the Lithuanian Reformed, but that was in addition to his legal obligation to the Roman Catholic churches on his estates. The same was true of the other nobles. They had not only to maintain Reformed churches, almshouses, and schools, defending them from increasing Catholic legal challenges (and settle the legal fees), but also to pay their tithes to the Catholic Church as well as provide for those churches and the priests on their estates. Keeping the Reformed faith now required considerable faithfulness, determination, and often, financial security. In Lesser Poland, the Reformed provincial synod in Oksa in 1626 remarked that, “At these times, due to the taking back of the churches, the congregations are becoming desolate,”80 and called on nobles to build new Reformed churches to replace those returned to the Roman Catholics. These calls were repeated during the provincial synods in 1628 in Ożarów. In 1630, the Lublin district went even further, warning, “if their lordship patrons will be so careless and tepid, than this their tepidness the seniors should relate to the future provincial synod. There [church] discipline will be on such extracted.”81 Some nobles responded to the advance of Catholicism with indifference. In 1629, the provincial Lesser Poland synod sent a special delegation of lay and ordained Cracow church seniors to “prevent the apostasy of the Lord Ciekliński who weakens in his evangelical religion.”82 They were to visit him at home and “in the true evangelical religion admonish and rectify [him].”83 In this case, they failed, and the young Dobiesław Ciekliński (d. 1653)  converted to 80 asr iii, 478. 81 Ibid., 507, 538. 82 Ibid., 535. 83 Ibid., 535.

192 

Chapter 8

Catholicism and tried (unsuccessfully) to convert his father. Scores of others abandoned Calvinism quietly and with no traces of their decisions. Yet, the image is far from clear of constant decline. Despite complaints by the synods, the Reformed schools in the Crown and Grand Duchy functioned well and maintained a high level of education. Bibles, hymnals, and devotional literature were printed (at the nobles’ expense), churches were maintained, and some new ones were built, together with new schools, almshouses, and parsonages. In 1633 in Niekrasów after the funeral of Marcjan Dębicki, a lay senior of the Sandomir district, his sons “promised sancte”84 to restore the church where the service was held, build a new parsonage, and settle better conditions for the minister there. They kept their word not once but twice: when in 1634 they sold Niekrasów village to a Catholic, they built a new Reformed church in the nearby estate of Osala by 1636. When they sold that estate too in 1643, they built another Reformed church in Tursko Wielkie. This church endured until 1849, and the Dębicki family remained Calvinist until the twentieth century. There is some indication that from the 1620s onwards, the dwindling number of nobles actually increased their generosity and commitment to their Calvinist faith in the face of daunting odds. Of the nine congregations in Lesser Poland that survived until 1768 when the political rights of Protestants were restored, seven had been established between the 1610s and 1660s.85 As the seventeenth century went on, many, especially the magnates, found it impossible to resist the rising power of Roman Catholicism, now backed increasingly by state pressure. Once again, a cursory look at three specific cases will help to illustrate the decline of the Reformed religion among the Commonwealth’s nobility in first half of the seventeenth century. Zygmunt Grudziński (1568–​1655), palatine of Kalisz, was brought up in the Czech Brethren Church. His mother, Jadwiga Cerekwicka (d. c. 1594), had been a generous patroness of her denomination, but after her death, he cut off his links with the Church. He stopped attending worship, refused to support Brethren ministers and churches on his estates and concentrated on amassing a fortune in real estate. When in 1618 the Brethren and Lutheran churches in Poznań were destroyed, he allowed the Lutherans to build a church in his town of Swarzędz, but only because he did not have to contribute to its construction. The Brethren, who counted on his generosity, hoped in vain, and their services were moved to a town further away in Skoki—​with a more generous patron. Married to a Roman Catholic and with his sons brought up in her faith, 84 85

Dep. Wil. 41, fol. 398. Ibid., fol. 398–​429; Merczyng, Zbory, 44–​82; W.  Czapliński, Dobiesław Ciekliński (zm. 1653), PSB, vol. 4 (1938), 42.

The Nobles Convert

193

Grudziński for years showed no interest in religion, other than identifying as a Calvinist and insulting Lutherans and Roman Catholics alike. His attitude changed in 1652, when he was in his eighties. That year, the Brethren synod received a letter from him asking for an educated minister for his town of Łobżenica. A considerable part of the town’s population was Protestant, and the nobleman hoped that a learned minister might help grow the church school and attract youth from Gdańsk and Elbląg. He also mentioned that it would give him “joy, if the minister with Jesuits in praesentia eius [would] debate.”86 This sudden late in life interest in theology did not impress the synod and they did not appoint a minister to a patron known for his stinginess. The palatine died a year later, allegedly converting on his deathbed to Roman Catholicism.87 By the mid-​seventeenth century, only one branch of the Firlej family remained Reformed. Andrzej Firlej (d. 1649), castellan of Bełz, and his wife were devout Calvinists, supporting churches and schools. They died childless, and their estates passed on to Firlej’s nephew Andrzej. Andrzej died in 1660 leaving a widow, Katarzyna, and young children. A  large Reformed church and school existed in their estates of Kock and Wojcza, in Lesser Poland. Shortly after Firlej’s death, their oldest son Andrzej (d. 1668) converted to Roman Catholicism, “unwilling to follow his parents’ heretical ways.”88 This was used as a pretext by Catholic relatives to sue his mother, accusing her “that you support an evangelical minister, teaching [your] children blasphemous Calvinist religion.”89 The lawsuit claimed that by bringing up her children as Calvinists, she was preventing them from converting to Catholicism. The Lesser Reformed community understood what was at stake and rallied to her defense morally, financially, and politically. The provincial synod in Radzięcin in October of 1661 sent a special delegation of laymen and pastors to confirm her in her faith. It was all in vain—​under pressure, in 1662, she converted with her children and closed down the churches in Kock and Wojcza. This meant not only the dispersal of the local Calvinists (both noble and burgher) but also brought five generations of Calvinism in the Firlej family to an end.90 86 app abc 1514. 87 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 99, 133; J.  Wisłocki, Zygmunt Grudziński (ok. 1572–​1653), PSB, vol. 9 (1960/​1961), 49. 88 W. Kowalski, “Stopnicki rejestr konwertytów XVII-​XIX w.,” Nasza Przeszłość 76 (1991): 228. 89 Wajsblum, Ex regestro, 51. 90 buw ser 592, fol. 135; Kowalski, “Stopnicki rejestr,” 228–​229; Wajsblum, Ex regestro, 51–​52; Tworek, Działalność, 269, 295. There is discrepancy between the Roman Catholic and Reformed sources whether the events took place in 1660 or 1662. Given that the Reformed sources are more contemporary than the Catholic register of converts, I chose the Reformed dating of the events and 1660 as the date of the first conversion.

194 

Chapter 8

The Leszczyński family offers another good example of the rise and fall of Calvinism among the Polish nobility. The first Rafał Leszczyński (c. 1526–​1592) founded many Calvinist churches in Kujawy and later inherited the city of Leszno with a thriving Brethren congregation. His oldest son converted to Catholicism sometime in the 1580s under the influence of his wife. Rafał’s two younger sons, Andrzej (see below) and Wacław (d. 1628), remained Protestant at the time, but Wacław converted to Catholicism in 1600. His conversion later secured him the office of Great Crown Chancellor—​something denied to Andrzej on account of his religion. Their sisters, Anna Latalska, Barbara Przyjemska, and Duchess Marianna Zasławska, remained devout Calvinists all their lives. Andrzej Leszczyński (1559–​1606), later palatine of Brześć, moved to Lesser Poland, where he turned Baranów Sandomierski into the center of Lesser Poland’s Calvinism. He was an avid parliamentarian, defending the rights of his co-​religionists. Of his six children, the youngest three sons were brought up Catholic by their mother after his death (see above). His two daughters, Katarzyna Czema and Barbara Słupecka, remained Calvinists all their lives: Katarzyna managed to convert her Lutheran husband to Calvinism, while Słupecka raised most of her children Protestant, despite her husband’s conversion to Catholicism in 1615.91 Andrzej’s oldest son, Rafał ii Leszczyński (1579–​1636), the palatine of Bełz, was known as “the Pope of Calvinists in the Crown.” He was a generous patron of the churches both in Lesser and Greater Poland, and by the time of his death, he was effectively the last Reformed magnate left in the Crown. His residence in Baranów Sandomierski was known for its Reformed piety and learning, and Reformed noblemen were sent for their education with him from all over the Commonwealth. Rafał ii left behind one daughter and four sons, all raised Calvinist.92 The oldest son, Rafał iii (1607–​1644), died young, leaving behind a daughter, Teofilia (d. 1682). The youngest, Władysław (d. c. 1661), remained Calvinist all his life, even becoming the elder of the Lublin Reformed district, but he was never involved in politics. The second oldest, Andrzej Leszczyński (d. 1651), palatine of Dorpat, inherited Baranów Sandomierski but was more interested in poetry than politics. He died young, leaving the custody of his only 91 Dworzaczek, Andrzej Leszczyński (ok. 1559–​ 1606), PSB, 101–​ 103; idem, Wacław Leszczyński (ok.1576–​1628), PSB, 147–​149; Kowalska, Barbara Słupecka, PSB, 101–​102; M. Sipayłło, Rafał Leszczyński (ok.1526–​1592), PSB, vol. 17 (1972), 133–​135. 92 Sipayłło, Rafał Leszczyński (1579–​1636), PSB, 135–​139.

The Nobles Convert

195

son, Samuel, to his younger brother Bogusław, explicitly wanting the boy to be raised in the Reformed religion.93 Bogusław Leszczyński (1614–​1659) is difficult to evaluate. Brought up Reformed, he was uninterested in religious matters, and focused on economics and politics instead. Bogusław inherited the estates in Greater Poland, with the town of Leszno. In 1641, he was elected as the last Protestant Speaker of the Sejm but shortly after, in early 1642, he converted to Roman Catholicism and was promptly rewarded with the position of General Captain of Greater Poland. Contemporaries saw him as an opportunist and thought he had no religion at all. In a letter to the Brethren seniors written after his conversion, Leszczyński stated that while he could not be one of their sheep, he would be their guard dog instead. He continued to be their patron, issuing a special charter to the Brethren and Lutherans in town in 1652, promising them full freedom of worship and exempting them from having to receive Catholic priests or to attend Catholic processions. He even delayed turning over the city’s church to the Roman Catholics until the Brethren had built a new one for themselves. His benevolence allowed Leszno to remain the capital of Crown’s Calvinism until the eighteenth century.94 But Bogusław Leszczyński was consistently inconsistent when it came to religious matters. Against the explicit wishes of his late brother Andrzej, he sent his nephew Samuel (1637–​1676) to the Jesuits, where the young man was promptly converted and became a fanatical Catholic. In the same year that Bogusław issued a generous toleration charter to the Leszno Calvinists, his nephew and ward destroyed Calvinism in Baranów Sandomierski, a place where it had flourished thanks to the patronage of Bogusław’s brother, father, and grandfather.95 By the time Bogusław Leszczyński died, Calvinism was professed only by one niece and one nephew: Władysław’s son Andrzej Leszczyński (c. 1649–​1693), who would convert in 1674, and the abovementioned Teofilia Leszczyńska (d. 1682), who remained Reformed until her death. Thus, ended Calvinism in a family that for five generations had been its pillars.96 93 Kowalska, Andrzej Leszczyński (ok.1606–​1651), PSB, 103–​104. 94 Dworzaczek, Bogusław Leszczyński, PSB, 107–​111; Dworzaczkowa, “Konwersje,” 92–​93. 95 Majewski, Samuel Leszczyński, PSB, 143–​144. 96 Gmiterek, “Włodawa,” 58–​65; S. Karwowski, “Leszczyńscy herbu Wieniawa,” Miesięcznik Heraldyczny 8 (1915): 165–​171.

­c hapter 9

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs In 1568, the Roman Catholic priest in Dzierzgów in Lesser Poland wrote a letter to his neighbor and fellow noble, the Calvinist Hieronim Rzeszowski. Informing him that a group of peasants and burghers from Kossów wished him to teach them “salvation’s way,”1 the priest asked for his permission as the lord of the manor to do so. Apparently, Rzeszowski’s subjects did not want to listen to their landlord’s Calvinist minister, whom he had settled in the small town, nor would they allow him to baptize their children. Rzeszowski replied in a lengthy letter: “And not just now, but for over a number of years, that I ask, plead, threaten [my] subjects with the Lord’s anger, vengeance and damnation, and finally with my own displeasure—​at this time their lord. I keep the Lord’s servants [Calvinist Ministers] for the proclamation of God’s voice, but if they do not flee to this gentle and gracious Lord’s trumpet and his gift, woe will be to those.”2 The nobleman thanked the priest for not interfering in his internal affairs. Rzeszowski vowed to continue in his endeavors to bring the obdurate serfs into the fold of the Reformed religion: “I would wish to my subjects and all my household, to truly praise God, and if they do not want to, let them praise the idol Baal, but only let no one, publicly and to my knowledge, ­practice ­idolatry.”3 Rzeszowski’s letter has been cited as first-​hand confirmation of the failure of Calvinism to bring about the conversion of peasants and burghers to the new religion. Coupled with Roman Catholic sources that stress the lack of plebeian support for the Reformation, the dominant narrative has focused on why Reformation failed in the Commonwealth. Its failure is a given.4 Having converted to Protestantism themselves, the Commonwealth’s nobles were faced with the challenge of bringing the peasant and burgher subjects on their estates to the new faith. As we shall see, they were rarely successful at converting peasants, but had more success with the burghers. Polish historiography has continually stressed the failure of the Reformation movement 1 Urban, Chłopi, 137. 2 Ibid., 137. 3 Ibid., 138. 4 Most recently J.  Wijaczka, “Reformacja w miastach prywatnych w Koronie w XVI wieku,” Roczniki Dziejów Społecznych i Gospodarczych 77 (2016): 400–​401; idem, “The Reformation in sixteenth-​century Poland,” 19–​21.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_010

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

197

to attract burghers and peasants to the new church. While there is no doubt that the Reformation did not produce a large social movement throughout the entire realm, there is some ambiguity in numbers and outcome. In Lesser Poland during the early stages of the Reformation (1550–​c. 1570), the manner of establishing congregations followed the same pattern:  a nobleman, having converted, turned the town or village church over to a Protestant minister, leaving him with some of the church’s former endowments. Sometimes this transition was a little smoother when the local Catholic priest shared the landlord’s unorthodox ideas or liturgical practices, or was willing to adopt them. As the Commonwealth’s nobility soon discovered, the process of building Protestant (and post-​1570 Reformed) congregations was far more arduous than they had expected. For many peasants, the change was dramatic, as the landlords often acted violently, hastily, and with no consideration for their subjects’ feelings. The nobleman would strip the church of the altars, confiscate the valuables, expel the Catholic priest and, more often than not, seize the endowments and church tithes for himself. Frequently, these actions were carried out with vindictiveness towards the old church and its rituals: In 1565, Zbigniew Sienieński (d. c.  1567)  sacked the church in his village of Rymanów, trampled over the consecrated host, and used the holy oils to wax his shoes. He also expelled the Catholic priest and installed a minister of some sort. Sienieński became so notorious that his own peasants bribed him into not “reforming” the church in Iwonicz. In Iwaniska, the Zborowski family confiscated clerical vestments for their personal use. In 1582, the Unitarian noble Mikołaj Jordan used cannons to bombard and allegedly destroy the Catholic church in his town of Bobowa. Three years later, his mother tore down a crucifix remaining in the church (her son had somehow failed to destroy it) and used it as firewood to cook a meal for the local poor. In the village of Kotuszów in 1565, Krzysztof Lanckoroński sacked the church and closed it. When the local priest objected, claiming the building was the church’s property, the nobleman had the wooden structure dismantled and the lumber delivered to the priest with a note that he should build his church on his own property. The palatine Piotr Zborowski tore down a village chapel in Maciejowice, where the peasants in his estates prayed.5 While for many landlords the sacking of churches and confiscation of former church property was a way to enact the Reformation principle of a “cheap church,” for a few it was better, and far more economical, to have no church

5 Urban, Chłopi, 14–​151; Kiryk, Zbigniew Sienieński, PSB, 192–​193; W. Urban, Mikołaj z Zakliczyna Jordan (ok. 1515–​1580), PSB, vol. 11 (1965), 281–​282.

198 

Chapter 9

on their estates at all. Having destroyed the old buildings, their religious zeal dissipated, leaving peasant serfs in religious limbo, with no Christian worship or pastoral care. In many cases, it took years before the noblemen settled the, by then, dilapidated church with a Protestant minister. Even where the switch happened immediately, the road to converting the peasants was long and ­difficult. The nobles resorted to religious coercion, suppression of any Catholic worship on their estates, attempts at voluntary conversion, or any combination of the above. The abovementioned letter by Rzeszowski shows that even after fifteen years of suppressing Catholic worship in his estate of Kossów, as well as patient convincing, his subjects were still not interested in joining the Reformed Church. With enough time, however, attitudes could change: although in 1568 Rzeszowski had not succeeded in converting his peasants and burghers to Calvinism, as we shall later see, by the 1600s he had converted enough of them that they remained Reformed four decades after Roman Catholicism was restored in Kossów. A 1582 church visitation record of some of the churches in the Lublin Reformed district testifies to some success of Calvinism among both the burghers and peasants. In the village of Rybitwy, the landlord and the minister taught not just the village children, but also some of the peasants. The records show that they gathered a few dozen of the faithful for the visitation. These peasants were considered versed enough in Calvinist doctrine to vouchsafe his Calvinist orthodoxy. In the village of Łuszczowa in Lublin, the joint efforts of the nobleman Piotr Czerny and the minister brought some measure of success among “quite a numerous number of common folk”6 even if the minister complained that the peasants were “recalcitrant.”7 In Drzązgów, only a few peasants attended in the Reformed church during the visitation, but they did appear, nonetheless. In Opole Lubleskie, the visitors saw a congregation of a few hundred people gathered in church, explicitly mentioning both peasants and burghers in attendance. Congregations in Żółkiew, Chłaniów, Sitaniec, Przemysłów, and Kryłów all reported common folk by the dozens. In the other visited congregations, the Lipie recorded only one peasant, and none in Popokowice, where the visitors were told the landlord did not force his serfs to listen to the pastor. All in all, out of the fourteen congregations that were visited, nine (64%) had a visible number of peasants. These may not have all been actual Reformed Church members, but presumably some were. Of the nine congregations

6 asr iii, 60. 7 Ibid., 61.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

199

with peasants in attendance, the visitation explicitly records questioning them about the pastor in four congregations (Opole, Rybitwy, Żółkiew, and Chłaniów), with notes from three other congregations being unclear on the subject (Łuszczowa, Rzeplin, and Przemysłów). This might suggest that in at least those four congregations some common folk were actual Reformed Church members and visitation records suggest that the peasants had grown accustomed to it. In 1600, the Reformed district in Lublin asked its noble patrons to allow peasants to attend the Reformed Church services instead of having them work in the fields during that time—​perhaps trying to retain the allegiance of those who had converted.8 Some landlords did resort to outright religious compulsion. During the 1582 visitation in Drążkowa, the Reformed Church visitors advised the nobleman and minister to compel the absent peasants to attend the Reformed worship. In other villages, they asked if the landlord compelled the peasants, and most replies suggest that they did. Sometimes this involved fines, but in rare cases, as in Pieczybiegi, the landlord had his subjects whipped if they refused. Fines and imprisonment were used in other areas of Lesser Poland.9 In the village of Jodłówka, Cyryl Chrząstowski “gained almost all his subjects to the Jodłów congregation” by the 1570s—​according to his son, the Unitarian Andrzej.10 In Rybitwy and Przemysłów in the Lublin region, the personal piety of the patrons influenced a number of peasants to become Calvinists. As late as 1610, we hear of a local noble, Jan Męciński, converting a dozen of his peasants on his estate of Kobylany. In the parish of Tuczępy, the church was returned to Catholics already in 1598, but twenty years later there were still among the peasants “magna ex parta haeresi infectos.”11 The number of Reformed nobles and churches in the valley of the Nida River was so substantial that it was called “the Lutheran river” centuries later and it is quite probable that the area had Calvinist peasants too. In Sędziejowice, the eloquent Reformed pastor Franciszek Płachta converted (or as the Catholic visitor bitterly noted, “occidit”) many, if not the majority, of the peasants.12 But except for the county of Oświęcim (discussed below), any Calvinist inroads among the peasants were ephemeral. While the 1582 Lublin district visitation records show that, at least in the initial phase of the Reformation, some peasants attended the Reformed church services, the peasants disappear by 8 Ibid., 50–​68. 9 Urban, Chłopi, 132–​141. 10 Cztery broszury, 224. 11 Urban, Chłopi, 185. 12 Ibid., 179–​203.

200 

Chapter 9

the early seventeenth century. Tellingly, quoting the example of his father from the 1560s, Chrząstowski makes no mention of Calvinist peasants when he wries 1618. By then, and apparently under his watch, they had converted to Roman Catholicism, a fact he understandably chose not to dwell on. His Reformed polemist, Jakub Zaborowski (d. 1621), delighted to point it out to him: “Let us endeavor to speak the truth to each other. Some of ours [Calvinists] travelled (…) where your Lordship resided for no short time. They inquired if such a pious and zealous patron converted anyone of his serfs to the Holy Gospel—​and they were unable to point out even one.”13 With Roman Catholicism resurgent from the 1570s, the few Calvinist peasants quietly converted to Catholicism. The principal reason for such quick defections was the short-​lived tenure of the Calvinist churches in Lesser Poland. Of the 234 Reformed congregations established in Lesser Poland before 1570 as listed by Henryk Merczyng, 153 (over 65%) of them ceased to exist before 1600—​thus within one or two generations, the majority lasting around twenty years. Of course, local variations occurred: In the area of Radom, of the thirteen Calvinist congregations established before 1570, only four (30%) existed after 1600. On the other hand, of the thirty-​five Reformed congregations in the Lublin district established before 1570, twenty-​five (71%) still existed after 1600—​but the overall ephemeral existence of many Calvinist congregations is evident.14 However, in most instances, Reformation propaganda among the peasants failed to attract them to the new church. The Catholic visitation records—​or reports after the churches were taken back from Protestants—​record with glee very few, if any, convinced Protestants among the peasants. We know from nuncios’ reports that most peasants would attend a nearby Catholic church when their landlord converted to Calvinism. During the 1582 visitation of the Sitaniec congregation, which had a few dozen “common folk,” the patron and minister nonetheless complained that there would be more, but “a chapel of the antichrist [a Catholic chapel nearby] is a nuisance.”15 In the village of Oleśnica, where the church remained in the hands of the Reformed for over half a century (1562–​1613), the Catholics went clandestinely to the nearby Pacanów for Catholic worship and sacraments, and “awaited the restoration of the ancient religion.”16 In the village of Jawor, after fifteen years of forced 13 14

Cztery broszury, 73. asr iii, passim; Merczyng, Zbory, 13–​ 14, 44–​ 82; J.  Wijaczka, “Protestantyzm w regionie świętokrzyskim w XVI-​XVII wieku (ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem powiatu radomskiego),” in ed. J. Kłaczkow, Ewangelicy w Radomiu i regionie (XVI-​XX w.). Studia i materiały (Radom: 2007), 31; Kossowski, Protestantyzm, 85-​96, 151–​155. 15 asr iii, 64. 16 Urban, Chłopi, 152.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

201

Protestantization, the Catholic peasants managed to extract a promise of religious toleration from Mikołaj Oleśnicki. In another village, the peasants were powerless to stop the expulsion of a Catholic priest but would not consent to “reforming” of the local church; the building was shut with two keys, one held by the Protestant landlord, one by the Catholic serfs.17 Seizing of former church lands, the destruction of churches and (especially in the early stages of the Reformation) the questionable quality of the Protestant clergy often led to the collapse of the peasants’ religious life and their outright hatred of both the landlord and his church. In one village, the peasants cursed their owner: “God grant that he [the landlord] and his manor be burned by a thunder! He would rather build a manor on the priest’s field than restore the church!”18 During a 1556 meeting between the Brethren and the Lesser Poland Reformed nobles and clergy, the latter characterized the peasant population as “resistant to the pure word of God” and described vividly their view of the ministers: “And about us, servants do not hold anything good, but curse, and slander. Where two or three or more come together, always speak ill of us, and would be happy if the earth swallowed us up.”19 A generation later, Andrzej Chrząstowski, having just converted from Calvinism to Unitarianism, was quick to point out to his former religionists that there were almost no peasants among the Reformed church members—​though we have seen he should have been very careful not to cast any stones himself.20 The Brethren in Greater Poland did not fare much better at attracting peasants. There are very few documents listing membership of rural congregations, but those that do survive show that despite their patience and moderation, the Brethren attracted only a handful of peasants to their ranks. We do not know of any peasants in the seven congregations in the Konin area, although that does not mean that there were none. A rare list of members in the rural congregation in Karmin from 1656 has 131 adult members: fifty nobles and three Scots; the remaining sixty-​three were peasants from nine surrounding villages. Despite Karmin’s owners having been staunch Brethren members since the sixteenth century, the number of Reformed peasants in that village was around thirty precent of its population. The rural congregations in Lasocice, Waszkowo, and Jędrzychowice were almost exclusively Brethren but were made up of primarily German Protestant immigrants who settled there in the late sixteenth century. Earlier numbers have been lost, but during the 1660 Easter 17 Ibid., 153–​154; Pielas, Oleśniccy, 171. 18 Urban, Chłopi, 119–​120. 19 Ibid., 151. 20 Ibid., 150–​154.

202 

Chapter 9

Communion there were 874, 1087, and 901 communicants in those congregations respectively.21 Brethren congregations with Polish peasant members were rare. Kowalewo and Kurcewo had some, the former with 901 communicants in 1660. Polish peasants may have been present in the congregations of Parcice, and Mielęcin, but they were a small number, and the majority of the membership was made up of nobles or small-​town burghers. In 1556, the Brethren senior Izrael sarcastically called the Lesser Poland’s superintendent Cruciger a “pastor of the lord, lady, and nearby gentlemen and gentlewomen,” but Izrael’s success with peasants was hardly better.22 The only case of the successful widespread conversion of peasants to Calvinism in the Crown is that of the area of Oświęcim, southwest of Cracow. Originally a separate principality, it was bought by the Polish kings in 1457 and became incorporated into the Crown in 1564 as part of the palatine of Cracow. Despite its small size, it was ethnically diverse, with substantial groups of Polish-​, German-​, and Dutch-​speaking peasants. The local peasants enjoyed a higher legal standing than those in other areas of the Crown, and church estates were not large. More importantly, the locals kept close economic and social contacts with the bordering Silesian principalities of Cieszyn and Pless, where the Reformation had been present the 1520s: in Cieszyn Lutheranism became the state religion in 1540, followed by Pless in 1591. Just as in the rest of the Crown, the Reformation in Oświęcim officially began to spread in the 1550s. It occurred in both noble and royal villages, as well as on estates owned by Catholic or families that were religiously indifferent—​for example, the Żywiec estates of the Komorowski family. What was unique was that in some cases, both nobles and peasants seized church lands for themselves, and in rare cases, nobles and peasants together agreed to turn them over to the Reformed Church. By the 1570s, the number of Calvinist congregations stood at twenty-​four with twenty-​eight former Catholics churches or chapels taken over for Reformed worship—​almost twenty-​nine percent of area parishes. This was the highest percentage in the Cracow palatine and one of the highest in the Crown. The congregations were gathered into a separate district with its own superintendent. The Oświecim district that was first to accept the Second Helvetic Confession as a standard of the new Church in 1567 before Lesser Poland’s Protestants followed suit. Under the energetic leadership of

21 22

J. Dworzaczkowa, “Zbór braci czeskich w Karminie,” OiRwP 13 (1963): 185–​198. asr i, 162; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 57, 178; idem, “Zbory braci czeskich w dawnym,” 41–​47.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

203

superintendent Paweł Gilowski (c. 1534–​1595), the Oświęcim district avoided any Unitarian inroads and remained stalwartly Calvinist.23 The relatively swift and mass conversion of the Oświęcim peasants to Calvinism has not been convincingly explained. While the small numbers of local nobles were intermarried and family ties were probably an important factor in their conversion to Calvinism, the circumstances of the peasants’ conversion are more mysterious. Some authors claim that a number of villages (particularly in Lipnik) were actually Lutheran and not Calvinist. That seems unlikely, and probably reflects late seventeenth-​and eighteenth-​century developments when the Oświęcim Protestants relied on the Lutheran clergy from Bielsko, rather than sixteenth and early seventeenth century realities. In my opinion, the exposure to Lutheran teaching in neighboring Silesia from at least the 1530s prepared the ground, just as in Royal Prussian towns. It is highly probable that Protestant doctrines were preached or known for at least a generation before the official ones of the Reformation in Oświęcim. When in 1550 the owner of the Dutch-​speaking Wilamowice village turned over the church to Calvinists, he could rely on the active participation of his peasants:  “the inhabitants, once devout Catholics, terribly insulted the holy church, smashing to pieces paintings, statutes, and altars, casting away holy paraments, breaking both crosses, chalices and monstrances, besmirching the saints of God, inheriting the church for their own use, [and] placing a pastor in the priest’s house for themselves.”24 A decade later, the owner’s brother did the same to church in Kozy. By then, the local peasants were already Calvinist. In Lipnik, the peasants themselves established a Protestant congregation, despite the opposition of the village noble tenants who were zealous Catholics.25 This level of Protestantization could not have happened overnight and probably had roots dating back to the 1530s and 1540s. When in the 1550s Protestantism came out in the open, the nobles and clergy steered it to the Reformed camp, effectively making in Calvinist by 1570. In some areas of Oświęcim by the 1570s, Calvinism had become the only available public worship, which probably further accelerated the process of converting the undecided to Calvinism. Another local curiosity is that although peasants in Oświęcim embraced Calvinism by the thousands, very few burghers did. 23 Szczotka, Paweł Gilowski, PSB, 471; Pawelec, Bartłomiej Bythner, 35–​38; A.  Kamiński, “Zbór w Marcyporębie,” RwP 11 (1948/​52): 43–​55; W. Urban, “Reformacja wśród chłopów w Oświęcimskiem,” OiRwP 2 (1957): 156–​175. 24 J. Latosiński, Monografia miasteczka Wilamowic na podstawie źródeł autentycznych (Kraków: 1910), 38. 25 Urban, “Reformacja wśród chłopów,” 157–​158, 165–​166.

204 

Chapter 9

Oświęcim Calvinism is unique not only regarding the speed and level of conversion among the area’s peasants, but also in their enduring allegiance to the Reformed faith. The Catholic reformation began here early. Already in 1583, King Batory intervened on behalf of the Protestant peasants in Lipnik, whom the royal tenants tried to compel into attending Catholic services. By 1595, the number of Reformed congregations in the Oświęcim Reformed district had shrunk to eight or nine, but unlike in other areas of the Crown, Calvinism among the peasants endured for deacdes. The Roman Catholic Church managed to regain the legal title to some of the church buildings, but in many cases, they stood vacant as the Catholic landlords would not permit a Protestant minister—​while the Calvinist peasants refused to support a Catholic priest. The owners of the Żywiec estates, the Komorowski family converted to Catholicism c. 1580, but former Catholic churches were still shut in 1617. In the village of Komorowice, the owners had converted to Catholicism and turned the church over to the Catholics in 1607; however, a decade later they were the only Catholics apart from the village drunkard-​priest and the schoolteacher—​all the peasants were “heretics” and refused even to speak to the Catholic episcopal visitor. In the village of Bestwina, the church was returned to the Catholics in 1595 but the villagers secured the services of the Lutheran pastor from across the border in Bielsko. In 1617, the frustrated priest referred to them as “Cains.”26 In Lipnik, the church building went back and forth from Calvinists to Catholics until the latter secured it for good in 1650. However, the peasants maintained their last Calvinist minister, Mateusz Claudinus, until his death in 1662. They then turned for spiritual aid to the Lutheran parish in Bielsko (over the border), becoming Lutheran by the end of the seventeenth century.27 Peasant Calvinism in Oświęcim outlived even the formal structure of the Reformed Church there. Most of the local noble families converted to Catholicism in the 1620s, and the remainder of the district were quietly incorporated into the Cracow district of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church. But the peasants remained faithful to their Reformed religion in Hałcnów, Lipnik, Wilamowice, Kozy, Mikuszowice, and several other villages. In 1626, a zealously Catholic nobleman bought the Dutch-​speaking village of Wilamowice and expelled the Calvinist pastor. He then summoned his peasants and declared that “he would not suffer any Calvinist” on his property. This “fierce declaration caused such an emotion among his subjects that they converted to the holy Catholic

26 27

S. Kot, Szkolnictwo parafialne w Małopolsce (Lwów: 1912), 251. Urban, “Reformacja wśród chłopów,” 165–​166, 170–​172.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

205

faith, and very few remained in their stubbornness in the Calvinist faith.”28 Officially, after eighty years, the Reformed congregation had ceased to exist. But the mass conversion was only a ruse, and the village Calvinists soon built their own church where they worshipped. As late as 1658, the village priest was reminded by the episcopal visitation that the parish teacher should be Catholic—​it seems he was Reformed. Calvinist peasants are attested in Wilamowice half a century later, and the last family did not convert until the middle of the eighteenth century. In Mikuszowice, a Catholic church was built in 1612 and, under pressure from the priest and the landlord, most of the villagers had converted to Catholicism by 1650. In Bestwina as late as 1647, the Catholic priest was charged with making sure that Protestant ministers did not interfere with his “flock.” During the 1647 Sejm, Calvinist nobles complained that Catholic authorities were suing Catholic owners of Calvinist peasants for tolerating Protestants instead of forcing them to convert.29 The most celebrated case of Calvinist peasants in the Crown is that of the villagers in Kozy and Hałcnów. The local church in Kozy was Protestantized by the noble Gierałtowski family in 1559 and, by that time, the peasants there, mainly Germans, were already Calvinist. Calvinism in the village was also stabilized by long pastorates of the ministers there. In the 1630s, the village passed to the Calvinist Russocki family and after 1650, Kozy became one of the last remaining Reformed congregations in the area, serving the faithful in surrounding villages as well. In 1658, the Catholic Church finally regained possession of the church by force. The relations were not peaceful, and the newly installed Catholic priest secured a judgment allowing him to burn two of Kozy’s Calvinist peasants at the stake for an alleged assault; it is not clear if this was actually done. The landlord, Mikołaj Russocki (d. c. 1674), allowed his serfs to build a new wooden church but withheld financial support for the pastor. His son Piotr Russocki (d. 1691), who converted to Catholicism, closed this shed church in 1680.30 28 Latosiński, Wilamowice, 44. 29 Kot, Szkolnictwo, 252; Urban, “Reformacja wśród chłopów,” 166–​167, 169–​170. 30 Mikołaj Russocki (contrary to some claims) did not convert to Catholicism in 1666—​but was only excomunnicated that year for refusing to repay a church loan. He pleaded with the Reformed synod in 1669 to have his case resolved, and was in 1670 “was reconciled with God’s Church.” Also in 1666 his sons, Piotr and Jan Russocki, were were threatned with excommunication unless they “repaired their life.” Jan (d. 1711) remained Calvinist, so it was his brother Piotr Russocki’s conversion to Catholicism c. 1680 that caused the shed to be closed and the services moved to Hałcnów. buw ser 592, fol. 150, 157, 160; Pawelec, “Patronat szlachecki,” 120–​121; B. Jurzak, “Chłopi-​kalwini. Protestancka społeczność wsi

206 

Chapter 9

For the next seventy years, clandestine Calvinist services were conducted in a large shed in the nearby village of Hałcnów, thanks to the support of its Catholic owners, who were sympathetic to their Calvinist subjects. Reformed pastors came there from Wiatowice near Cracow until the 1750s. By the end of the century, the services were moved to the woods for safety and the Reformed peasants attended them armed to defend themselves and their pastor. After 1750, they relied more and more on Lutheran pastors from Bielsko, but the congregations in both villages began to dwindle, and the remaining Protestants in Hałcnów converted to Catholicism over the next two decades. At the same time, the new owners of Kozy resumed religious persecution of their Reformed subjects. Finally, in 1770, over 300 Calvinists from Kozy fled over the Prussian border, where they established their own settlement—​Anhalt (today:  Hołdunów)—​with a Reformed congregation. It still exists today.31 The Reformation in Lesser Poland’s private towns followed a similar pattern: the Protestant owner of the town would seize the church, strip it of its endowments, destroy the religious images, and appoint a Protestant minister to replace the Catholic clergy. Mikołaj Oleśnicki and his actions in Pińczów in 1550 are traditionally understood to be the first of their kind in the Crown, though technically that might not be accurate. In Greater Poland, Jakub Ostroróg installed Feliks Cruciger as a minister in his private town of Ostroróg around 1550. Anna Kiszka née Radziwiłł (d. 1600) , who turned over the church to a Protestant minister in her town of Węgrów in the late 1540s, was probably the first to do so in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.32 Having “cleansed” the town’s church, the owner and freshly minted minister had to get on with the business of converting the local burghers. Overall, liturgical moderation on the part of the new ministers, coupled with good preaching and wisdom in introducing new doctrines, worked remarkably well. In 1551, Jan Lanckoroński (d. 1564) expelled the Catholic priest from his town of Wodzisław, purged the church, and settled Marcin Krowicki as the town’s pastor. Five years later, Krowicki described how by gradual liturgical means

31 32

Kozy od XVI do XIX wieku,” in ed. A. Banot, E. Gajewska and T. Markiewka, Reformacja z perspektywy Bielska i Białej (Bielsko-​Biała: 2018), 114–​130; Lenczewski, Russoccy, 40–​41, 108–​110, 113. A. Malina, Ewangelickie tradycje Hołdunowa (Katowice: 1994), 33–​36; Urban, “Reformacja wśród chłopów,” 167–​168. J. Dworzaczkowa, “Zbór braci czeskich w Ostrorogu,” in idem, Z dziejów barci czeskich w Polsce, (Poznań: 2003), 32–​40; Pielas, Oleśniccy, 151–​160; J. Zawadzki, “Anna z Radziwiłłów Kiszczyna, 2 voto Sadowska—​burzliwe losy dziedziczki fortuny,” in ed. J. Urwanowicz, Władza i Prestiż. Magnateria Rzeczypospolitej w XVI-​XVII wieku (Białystok: 2003), 381–​392.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

207

he converted the burghers (Chapter 4). Strict Calvinists disapproved of such leniency, but unlike others, Krowicki actually converted the town’s population to Protestantism. Wodzisław became the seat of many synods of the Lesser Poland church, and Calvinism thrived there. In 1613, Lancoroński’s grandson, Samuel (d. 1638), converted to Roman Catholicism, expelled the minister and turned the church over to the Catholics. He gave Wodzisław’s burghers a choice to leave or convert and, as tax records show, over half of the burghers left.33 Gorlice in Lesser Poland is another example where a smooth transition from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, perhaps thanks to liturgical moderation, succeeded at converting some of the burghers. Gorlice’s owners settled a Protestant minister in their church circa 1570. As was often the case, he was a former Roman Catholic priest, and Catholic sources list him as Lutheran. The Lesser Poland Reformed complained about his liturgical practices during the 1603 district synod in Chęciny. His successors were Reformed, but it was probably his liturgical moderation as well as stalwart support from the town’s owners that converted a number of its inhabitants to Calvinism. After Gorlice’s church was returned to the Catholics in 1626, one of the co-​owners tried unsuccessfully to ban Protestants from town guilds. Calvinism endured, thanks to a new church built in another part of the town owned by the Reformed Rylski family. “Heretical” burghers in Gorlice were mentioned until the final suppression of the congregation in 1658 and remained there possibly until the 1680s.34 Liturgical moderation was not the only means of bringing burghers into the fold of the Reformed Church. Other examples suggest that eliminating opportunities for Catholic worship as well as applying sustained but moderate religious pressure proved very effective over time. The classic example is the town of Secemin, owned by Stanisław Szafraniec. Around 1553, he settled Feliks Cruciger as the town’s pastor. Contemporary sarcastic comments from the Czech Brethren suggest that the patron and minister were at first unsuccessful in drawing the burghers into the fold of the Reformed Church. But time and other actions by Szafraniec and the ministers worked to the Calvinist advantage. The last Catholic priest was permitted to live quietly in the town next to a small chapel, although it is not clear if he was allowed to celebrate mass. When he died, he was not replaced, and Reformed worship became the only option available in town. Szafraniec turned over all other churches on his estates to Calvinist worship, which eliminated opportunities to attend Catholic mass nearby. The Reformed school in Secemin, where burgher sons could study for 33 34

asr i, 111; Urban, Chłopi, 223. W. Budka, “Zbór w Gorlicach i jego patroni,” RwP 3 (1924) 134–​141; Urban, Chłopi, 222–​ 225; idem, “Reformacja mieszczańska,” 167–​168.

208 

Chapter 9

free, also had a considerable influence on its community and through it, many of its students became not just Calvinist, but also ministers of the Lesser Poland Reformed Church. Szafraniec’s consistent religious policy was successful, and by the close of the sixteenth century a substantial number of the town’s inhabitants, if not an outright majority, embraced Calvinism. A local legend claims that some townswomen used former Catholic chasubles to make children’s clothing. Secemin’s importance for the Reformed Church is underscored by that fact that it was designated as one of the three places where the Lesser Poland Brethren were to hold their synods: twenty-​three synods were held here, and for almost a decade (1554–​1563) the town was the seat of Lesser Poland’s superintendent.35 Another, although not the most obvious, proof of Calvinist success in Secemin comes from the celebrated 1606 case of Jędrzej Grodzki. He was born into a Calvinist burgher family and was educated in the town’s school. At one point, he even considered becoming a Calvinist pastor, but fell out with the minister. Grodzki then converted to Catholicism and decided to join the Jesuits. After the town’s owner imprisoned him, he escaped and published his story, which was widely circulated for Jesuit propaganda. Grodzki’s story was meant to illustrate Calvinist failure at reaching the good and faithful oppressed Catholics, but ironically, it actually indirectly testifies to Calvinism’s success. Grodzki’s main arguments stated that secret Catholics living there helped him in his escape from Secemin, and that the majority longed for the restoration of Catholicism. However, parts of his story undermine his own claims. He was born and brought up in a burgher family who remained Calvinist despite his conversion. Grodzki claimed that the town’s Protestants were tepid in their faith—​that might have been so, but that is still admitting that they were, nonetheless, Calvinist. The fact that he managed to escape from prison when his guards and everyone in town were in the Reformed church is evidence that, fervent Calvinists or not, the town’s population was, on Sunday, in the Reformed church listening to their pastor preach.36 A third, tangible proof of the success of Protestantism in Secemin is the existence, in the town’s church, of a cenotaph of a Reformed burgher, Jerzy Borch, from 1601. This is the only such epitaph extant in Lesser Poland. Clearly, no matter how Grodzki and the Jesuits judged their Calvinist zeal, some of the town’s burghers had such strong attachments to their faith that they had epitaphs set in the Reformed church. 35 W. Urban, “Reformacja we włoszczowskiem,” in Et Haec, 303–​304. 36 Urban, Chłopi, 142–​144, 157–​158, 247–​249; S. Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, vol. 4, (Kraków: 1905), 466–​468.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

209

The decline of Calvinism in Secemin also offers evidence for its former success. When the Szafraniec family died out in 1608, the town passed to another Reformed nobleman, Wojciech Koścień. Not until 1609 did a neighboring Catholic church began to see incidental Catholic baptisms and weddings of Secemin’s burghers. The new owner was either not as effective at—​or not as interested in—​applying pressure on Secemin’s inhabitants to attend Reformed services. Even then, the numbers of Catholic defections remained small. In late spring of 1616, Secemin’s minister Grzegorz Jankowski converted to Roman Catholicism and burned the congregation’s library. The Lesser Poland synod promptly nominated a new minister, but in 1617 Koścień sold Secemin to a Catholic nobleman despite the synod’s pleas to sell it to a Protestant. The new owners expelled the minister in 1618 and turned the church over to the Catholics in 1621. While Calvinism in Secemin collapsed, the lack of sources does not allow us to say decidedly how fast that happened. The fact that cenotaph of a former Calvinist burgher was left intact in the now-​Catholic church suggests that the Catholics did not feel secure enough to remove vestiges of Calvinism too quickly. The only epitaph they did remove—​and drowned in a well—​was that of Stanisław Szafraniec, who introduced “heresy” into town. As late as 1630, there were still signs of lingering Calvinist sympathies among some of the town’s burghers.37 The nobles in the surrounding area followed Stanisław Szafraniec and his religious policy at Secemin.38 The neighboring towns of Kossów, Szczekociny, Włoszczowa, Oksa, and several others were transformed into Calvinist centers in the 1550s. In Szczekociny, a Calvinist congregation was established in 1552. The Catholics regained possession of the church in 1620, but the Reformed congregation continued. In 1623, the district synod in Włoszczowa asked the Calvinist owner of the town to “give a piece of bread to the Lord Jesus Christ”39 and settle a minister and (implicitly) build a new church there. The request was made on behalf of the town’s burghers. The owner, although himself a Calvinist, for whatever reason did not do so. Still, the Calvinists remained in town, and a local guild document from 1641 claims that only then “faith truly Roman began.”40 Whether that meant that most of the burghers had converted or that the remaining Calvinists had been expelled is not clear. 37 38 39 40

asr iii, 367–​369, 384; Urban, Chłopi, 157, 238. For a Catholic perspective, see W.  Kowalski, “Change in Continuity:  Post-​Tridentine Rural and Township Parish Life in the Cracow Diocese,” Sixteenth Century Journal, 35.3 (2004): 693. asr iii, 446. Urban, “Reformacja we włoszczowskiem,” 304.

210 

Chapter 9

After the loss of Secemin, Kossów, and Szczekociny, the towns of Włoszczowa and Oksa became the region’s center of Protestantism for the next three decades. Hieronim Szafraniec introduced Calvinism to Włoszczowa in 1556, but some form of Catholic worship was allowed until 1580, when the town’s church was taken over exclusively by the Reformed. By then a substantial number of Włoszczowa’s burghers embraced Calvinism. Just as in Secemin, the town hosted twenty-​right district synods between 1596 and 1625 under the patronage of the Szafraniec and Kreza families. From 1609 until 1626, Włoszczowa had the same Reformed preacher—​Andrzej Wojdovius—​testifying the congregation’s stability. The last Calvinist owner, Aleksander Kreza, died in 1625 and his successor was an ex-​Calvinist, Krzysztof Strasz (d. 1644). The Reformed synods in the town stopped, and Wojdovius left shortly after 1626. This was, however, not the end of the Włoszczowa’s Calvinism. Strasz’s two wives, Urszula Kreza (d. c. 1627), and then Zofia Oleśnicka (d. c. 1629), were both Calvinists. Between 1626 and 1632, Starsz returned the town’s church to the Roman Catholics, but he also built a new wooden Reformed church for his wife and the Włoszczowa Reformed congregation continued. The burghers were so obdurate in their Calvinism that in 1642, an appearance of the Virgin Mary to a group of small children in town was seen as a divine effort to convince them to convert. Perhaps at this divine prompting, in 1643, the now twice-​widowed Strasz finally expelled the Calvinist minister from the town, ending the congregation’s formal existence. Even then, the combined Marian and secular pressure had limited success, and Calvinists remained in Włoszczowa until the “Deluge.”41 The last Protestant town in the area, Oksa, was founded by the Rej family in 1554. It functioned as an exclusive Reformed city for over a century, with Reformed doctors, goldsmiths, and regular burghers among its faithful. The beautiful stone Reformed building was a visual reminder that Oksa’s owner’s Reformed faith was the only public faith allowed, and its inhabitants paid their tithes to the Calvinist minister. The church continued to hold regular district and provincial synods throughout the seventeenth century. It remained Reformed until 1678, when the frustrated Roman Catholics, unable to make any inroads by other means, seized the church by force.42 The town of Bełżyce near Lublin is another example of successful conversion of burghers in private towns to Protestantism. In 1561, Bełżyce’s owner, 41 42

asr iii, passim; Urban, Chłopi, 190, 222–​223; Urban, “Reformacja we włoszczowskiem,” 302–​307. asr iii, passim; Urban, Chłopi, 191; K. Bem, “Devil went down to Oksa devil haunting and Calvinist piety in a private town in mid seventeenth century Poland” (forthcoming).

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

211

Andrzej Bzicki (d. 1567), castellan of Chełm, installed his married priest brother as the minister, and ordered all burghers to attend church or face fines. After his death, the town came into the possession of the Orzechowski family, whose members vacillated between Calvinism and Unitarianism. With their encouragement, the majority of burghers became either Reformed or Unitarian. The remaining Catholics were left unmolested, but they were banned from attending mass elsewhere. Bełżyce held numerous Reformed synods, and for half a century (1617–​1666) it boasted the provincial gymnasium of the Lesser Poland Brethren. It flourished under the leadership of Maciej Makowski, brother of the Franeker theologian Maccovius. After 1633, the town’s congregation received a boost when Calvinist worship from Lublin was moved to Bełżyce. This provided financial support for the town’s church from the wealthy Lublin burghers and nobles. The religious diversity among the burghers, the absence of Catholic worship, and a thriving Calvinist school that educated not only nobles but also burghers made any attempts at re-​Catholicizing Bełżyce very difficult.43 In 1611, fifty years after Catholic worship was suppressed, the Jesuits, with much fanfare, conducted a mission to the town. The result was a complete fiasco: a single (perhaps the only) Lutheran burgher converted, while Calvinists and Unitarians remained unmoved. In 1642, a Catholic priest attempted to seize the town’s church by force. Unsuccessful, he had to resort to the aid of the royal army, which suggests he could not count on Catholic burgher support. In 1646, King Władysław iv Waza issued a privilege to Bełżyce’s guilds, allegedly in gratitude for the burghers’ conversion to Catholicism. The number of Catholics must have increased indeed, as that same year, some of them desecrated the corpse of a Calvinist burgher, Jan Kryst. The Catholics regained possession of the town’s church only in 1654. With the backing of town’s Reformed owners, Bełżyce’s Calvinists built a new wooden church and remained the city’s largest population until the “Deluge.” The town’s burghers are mentioned as members of the Reformed congregation until the early eighteenth century, and the congregation survived until the church burned down in 1782.44 A town’s conversion to Protestantism could be the result of multiple factors: religious coercion, the elimination of Catholic worship for a lengthy period of time, long-​lasting support from the town’s owner, and good pastoral skills 43 Merczyng, Zbory, 46–​47. 44 H. Gmiterek, “Bełżyce w reformacyjnym tyglu,” in ed. K. Spaleniec, M. Walczak-​Gruner, Studia z dziejów Bełżyc (Bełżyce:  2006), 59–​71; Kossowski, Protestantyzm, 86,91, 150–​ 151, 153, 177–​ 178; Tworek, Działalność, 155–​ 194; idem, “Gimnazjum kalwińskie prowincji małopolskiej w Bełżycach w połowie XVII wieku,” Annales UMCS, sectio F, 17 (1962): 155–​194; Urban, Chłopi, 238–​247.

212 

Chapter 9

on the part of the ministers. A case in point is the private town of Chmielnik in Lesser Poland. Mikołaj Oleśnicki’s brother Jan established a Reformed congregation there in 1558. Catholic sources claim that the last Catholic priest was allowed to live in the parsonage but was forced to share it with two Protestant ministers. After four years, the priest was expelled; he fled to a nearby town while the owner confiscated the church’s paraments and crucifix. Perhaps the story was a little more complex. Oleśnicki probably allowed the 80-​year-​old priest to continue in his duties while introducing Protestant ministers as his vicars, slowly “reforming” the church. The continued presence of church paraments and a crucifix implies that this process was gradual. After Oleśnicki felt enough groundwork had been laid for a full-​blown purging of the Chmielnik church, the old priest was expelled. Only then were the Catholic utensils and the crucifix confiscated, and the former priest banned from visiting the town. In his other estates, Oleśnicki used both financial incentives and beatings to encourage the burghers and peasants to attend Calvinist worship—​these same means were probably also used in Chmielnik. By the mid-​1560s, there was a substantial Protestant following in the town. In 1565, the town’s minister became Unitarian and, until 1591, Chmielnik was one of the major centers for the Polish Brethren, hosting a school and seven Unitarian synods. Around 1592, Mikołaj Oleśnicki (c. 1558–​1629), converted to Calvinism and closed the Unitarian school and church, handing them over to the Reformed. In 1595, the Lesser Poland Reformed synod stressed that while Unitarians were permitted to live in town, they were to be forbidden from “disseminating errors and holding synods there.”45 The synod also appointed Franciszek Płachta (c. 1560–​1634) as Chmielnik’s Reformed minister. Płachta was very effective in converting both the town’s Unitarians and remaining Catholics to Calvinism. In fact, because of his success Catholics called him “a murderer of souls.” He was no doubt helped by social background and experience from his hometown—​he was born into a burgher family in Secemin. With the support of Chmielnik’s owners, the Lesser Reformed established a Reformed school, an almshouse, and a library, and held many synods there. All of these factors, along with the absence of Roman Catholic worship, worked to Calvinist advantage. By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the town and a few surrounding villages had a Reformed plurality, if not an outright majority, with some burghers even owning their own Bibles. Chmielnik remained a town with a Reformed majority that lasted until the church’s destruction in 1691.46 45 46

asr iii, 110. asr i, 310; asr ii, 76; J. Łukaszewicz, Dzieje kościołów wyznania helweckiego w dawnej Małej Polsce (Poznań:  1853), 311–​ 315; 319–​ 324; Merczyng, Zbory, 48–​ 49; Pielas,

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

213

Unlike in Greater Poland, where the large private towns of Ostroróg and Leszno remained in the hands of Reformed nobles for almost a century, the Lesser Poland Calvinists did not have such capital. The closest approximation was the town of Baranów Sandomierski. Originally a small town on the periphery of the estates of the Leszczyński family, its status changed in the beginning of the seventeenth century when the Leszczyńskis made it their residence. Thanks to their generous patronage, Baranów Sandomierski soon boasted a Reformed school, almshouse, printing press, library, and a new brick church built for the Reformed. Its official Protestant character began to attract immigrants and settlers, and Baranów thrived, becoming Lesser Poland’s version of Leszno. The Reformed congregation was so numerous it had six elders:  two from the nobility and four from the burghers, with two of the burghers representing the Polish and two representing the German congregants. It is very likely that the number of elders reflected the social composition of the congregation itself. We know that the Baranów congregation had its own church book and exercised church discipline, particularly during the time of the stern Calvinist Tomasz Węgierski’s ministry. Baranów’s importance lay in the fact that it was the Lesser Poland residence of the Leszczyński family, was the seat of its superintendents from 1629, and it had a large burgher congregation. Baranów’s Calvinist history ended abruptly on January 7, 1655. That day, the young Samuel Leszczyński (1637–​1676), freshly converted by the Jesuits, closed all of the town’s Reformed institutions and gave them to the Catholics. The majority of the burghers converted, others emigrated, and Baranów itself declined in wealth and importance.47 Other Lesser Poland private towns with noticeable Reformed presence among the burghers included Czemierniki (until 1590), Czudecz (until 1612), Turobin (until 1620), Szczebrzeszyn, Biłogoraj, Kryłów, Kock (until the “Deluge”), Lewartów (until 1642), Piaski Luterskie (until the end of the seventeenth century), Jedlińsk (until 1630), Łańcut (until 1629), Opole Lubelskie (until the 1660s), among others. Overall, given the right circumstances, Calvinism proved it could be successful in the private towns of Lesser Poland.48 In Greater Poland, the question of how to convert the burgher subjects of the nobles posed a great theological challenge to the Czech Brethren. In principle, they opposed forced religious conversions. But those principles were

47 48

Oleśniccy, 163–​164, 173–​175; W. Kowalski, “Zarys dziejów Chmielnika w czasach przedrozbiorowych,” Almanach Historyczny 1 (1999):  65–​68; Urban, Franciszek Płachta Seceminius, PSB, 763–​764; Wajsblum, Ex regestro, 352–​355. asr iii, 542; Merczyng, Zbory, 45–​46; Łukaszewicz Dzieje kościołów, 311–​312. For an opposing opinion, see Wijaczka, “Reformacja w prywatnych,” 379–​406.

214 

Chapter 9

established in their homeland where they were peasants and small-​town burghers, accustomed to building their own modest church buildings. In Greater Poland, they found themselves converting nobles who gave them Roman Catholic parish churches and a population of faithful Catholic peasants and burghers who rarely shared their masters’ enthusiasm for this new faith. The Brethren were faced with a dilemma: how to proceed? The Brethren believed that their preaching would eventually convince the peasants and burghers to convert. They were highly critical of the methods of the Lesser Poland’s Calvinists, making sarcastic remarks about Felix Cruciger and how the burghers “would drown him in a spoon of water”49 out of hatred. Their approach would be different. True to their word, they restrained Jakub Ostroróg when he tried to force his peasants and the burghers on his estates to attend Brethren services. They chose to use more peaceable means. During the 1556 colloquy in Krzęcice with the Lesser Poland Calvinists, the Brethren stated that former Roman Catholic churches must be purged of “idols,” but that this must be done slowly and wisely. Giving the example of the two towns owned by their main patrons—​Ostroróg and Koźminek—​they described how initially they allowed the altars to stand “for quite a while” until the people learned “the truth of God. Then we covered them with sheets, and when the folks did not care for them much, we took them down from the altars and rods, and hid them in peculiar places, so that they would not be an obstacle to others more cloudy in faith.”50 This indicates that the Brethren in just three years were successful in converting some of the inhabitants of Ostroróg and Koźminek, though the phrase “more cloudy in faith” implies that not all had converted. A partial surviving record of the members of the Ostroróg congregation from the years 1554–​1586 suggests that in that period, perhaps thirty percent of the town’s inhabitants had joined the ranks of the Brethren. In the early 1600s, the congregation, as elsewhere, was boosted by the arrival of Scots. Very cautious estimates give the number of adult congregants at around 200 people, which would mean they constituted at least one third of the Ostroróg’s population. In 1636, the Crown Tribunal ordered the town church to be returned to the Catholics. The owner, Andrzej Rej, was unwilling to obey, and the Catholics laid literal siege to the building. The wife of the town’s administrator, Helena Bronikowska (d. c. 1663), rang the church bell and roused the burghers, indicating that some were opposed to the Catholic’s return. Her passion in trying to

49 Bidlo, Jednota Bratská, vol. 1, 158. 50 asr i, 113. It.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

215

rouse the town’s Protestants notwithstanding, the church was returned to the Catholics in that year. With a Catholic priest in town, the congregation began to decline. Some Protestant burghers moved to Leszno and others converted to Catholicism, but burgher members of the Ostroróg congregation are still explicitly mentioned during a 1644 visitation, and the congregation existed until the “Deluge.”51 We have no such records for the congregation in Koźminek. The town had a Brethren school that attracted a number of burghers’ sons and produced a few Brethren pastors. The Koźminek congregation existed from around 1554 until 1614, when the town was sold to a Catholic. By that time, there must have been some Calvinists among the burghers, as the church was re-​constituted in the nearby village of Wola Łaszkowska, where it continued until 1816.52 Koźminek and Ostroróg appear to have served as the exception to the rule, as by the 1570s, the Brethren clergy had become anxious concerning the small numbers of their faithful among both peasants and burghers and began to press nobles to ban their subjects from attending Catholic worship. Attitudes varied: Jakub Ostroróg did not force his subjects to attend Brethren services but would not permit any Catholic priests or activity within his estates. Jakub Krotoski issued a ban on attending Catholic services to his subjects in Barcin, but after his death, this was reversed. Finally, the owner of Wieruszów, Piotr Tomicki, followed a policy: “I do not force any to services; where they want, they go.”53 Was he tolerant or merely unconcerned with his serfs’ salvation? We do not know. Whether a reluctance to enforce religious conformity stemmed from disinterest or a realistic appraisal of the local circumstances is difficult to determine. During a 1612 visitation to the Marszewo congregation, the seniors requested that the owner pressure the peasants “who do not show themselves in church” to send their children to the local school, where it was hoped they could be swayed into becoming Reformed. The owner demurred, telling the Brethren that the peasants refused. He said they were threatened by a neighboring Catholic priest, and that if he were to force them, they would “rather all flee [his estate] than allow their children to be instructed by our ministers.”54

51

52 53 54

app abc 1711; asr iv, passim; Dworzaczkowa, “Zbór braci czeskich w Ostrorogu,” 32–​40; H.  Gmiterek, “Utrata Ostroroga i zabiegi o utworzenie nowego ośrodka Braci Czeskich w Obrzycku,” OiRwP 23 (1978):  103–​110; M.  Sipayłło, “Materiały do dziejów zboru w Ostrorogu,” OiRwP 13 (1968): 169–​184. Dworzaczkowa, “Zbór i szkoła,” 57–​59. asr iv, 380, 385–​386; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 58. app abc 1704.

216 

Chapter 9

Other Greater Poland towns where burghers were members of the Brethren churches were Łobżenica (whence hailed the Scottish dynasty of Musonius pastors), Krotoszyn, Lutomiersk, Chodcz, and Wieruszów. In Szamotuły, the Brethren burghers were numerous enough to share the main church with the town’s Catholics, but not numerous enough to maintain it on their own.55 The sole private town where the Brethren achieved a lasting plurality (and a privileged status) was Leszno. Their success there was due to several factors:  the consistency of support by the owners (the Leszczyński family), the constant stream of migrants settling there until the 1650s, a school, and the lack of Catholic worship in town. In 1658, after the town’s destruction, the Reformed congregation had 1749 members, including children. In the seventeenth century, the private town of Skoki may also have had a Brethren congregation that came close to being a plurality, if not a majority of the town’s inhabitants.56 The Grand Duchy of Lithuania followed a somewhat different pattern. As has been noted, the law gave the Reformed churches legal entity, which allowed Reformed congregations to exist legally. This meant that even after the town’s patrons converted to Catholicism, Calvinist burghers were technically not forced to convert with the town’s owners. When in 1612 the Catholic Jan Alfons Lacki (d. 1646) married the Calvinist heiress Joanna Talwosz, he promised to her, her devout parents, and her subjects they would have freedom to practice their Calvinist religion, and that he would not force any of them to convert to Roman Catholicism. His wife eventually converted to Catholicism and the Calvinist churches on her estates were closed down, which shows that these legal provisions were not ideal.57 Just as in the Crown, many private towns became Reformed when the owners converted to Protestantism and turned over the Catholic church to a Protestant minister. In Żmudź, where the Catholic Church’s network was relatively young and weak, the process was compounded when the local priest married and either abandoned the church or simply became a Protestant minister. In most cases, the transition was rather smooth—​there is no documentation of larger conflict or resistance to the change. By the 1570s, in swaths of Żmudź, Catholic worship became unavailable and the population (peasant, burgher, and noble alike) converted to Calvinism. Catholic presence reemerged only in the 1580s and 1590s when the Lithuanian hierarchy began a vigorous campaign 55 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 53–​58. 56 Ibid., 53–​58. 57 J. Seredyka, Jan Alfons Lacki (zm. 1646), PSB, vol. 16 (1971), 406–​407; D. Frick, Wilnianie. Żywoty siedemnastowieczne (Warszawa: 2008), 349–​351.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

217

to regain former churches and win back souls that had in the meantime moved to the Reformed camp. However, by then Calvinism would have been the sole religion in some areas for over fifty years. That, and the continued support from Reformed patrons, ensured that Calvinism here endured much longer than in the Crown, and in many places still exists today (Popiel, Radziwiliszki, etc.). An example of this trend was the privately owned town of Kielmy, in Żmudź. Its owners from the 1560s were Reformed. In 1591, the last Catholic priest finally married his mistress of many years, left the priesthood, and handed the keys of the church to the town’s owner, Jan Grużewski (d. 1609). Grużewski, a devout Calvinist, subsequently settled the church with a Reformed pastor. In 1606, the bishop of Żmudź sued Grużewski for forcibly ejecting the priest and seizing the church buildings—​the lawsuit was conveniently filed after the ex-​priest had died and could not contradict the claim. Legal battles ensued, and the Catholics regained possession of the old church in 1609. A year later, Jan’s widow, Zofia Grużewska, and her son Jerzy Grużewski (1591–​1651) issued an Ustawa to the burghers in Kielmy. They ordered that all inhabitants, under the pain of fine or imprisonment, attend the services at the town’s newly built Reformed church each Sunday and on the holy days. The requirement of attendance was made with the caveat that “faith of each one leaving to God’s holy insight, alone.”58 Kielmy’s burghers were also obligated to send their children to the Reformed school, baptize their children, and bury their loved ones in the Reformed church—​to avoid “fleecing,” the burials were to be done free of charge. The timing of Grużewski Ustawa—​immediately following the forced return of the town’s church to the Roman Catholics—​was no accident. Its tone suggests that the majority of the town’s burghers was either Reformed or sympathetic to the Reformed, and the Ustawa was issued to ensure their continued allegiance.59 In nearby Nowe Miasto, the Lithuanian grand chancellor Ostafi Wołłowicz (d. 1587)  issued in 1583 a regulation on how his subjects—​burghers and peasants like—​are “to live and behave piously.”60 Attendance at Sunday sermons was compulsory for all under the penalty of fines, and in the case of a third absence, of being placed in stocks located, tellingly, next to the church. Poor people were to be placed and provided for in the almshouse. Wołłowicz also established a school and ordered that all boys between the ages of 8 and 15, without exception, attend it. There they would learn the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed, and the catechism—​and they were then to teach it to their parents and grandparents. 58 Grużewski, Kościół, 91–​95. 59 Ibid., 91–​95. 60 mrpl, vol. 1 (1911), 93-​ 98.

218 

Chapter 9

Girls were supposed to be taught by the pastor’s wife the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles Creed—​but their schooling was not complusory. These provisions were confirmed by Wołłowicz’s heirs in 1592—​and with such intense and exclusive Reformed presence, it is little wonder that the congregation survived to this day. Duke Krzysztof i Radziwiłł the Thunderbolt’s 1589 charter for his town of Birże allowed city councilors to be Reformed, Lutheran, or Orthodox, and barred only Catholics and Jews from holding office. A decade later when endowing the new brick Calvinist church, he ordered that all burghers were to be taxed to provide for the minister, while the church was only to be used by the Reformed. Burghers in Birże and peasants in the surrounding area were to baptize their children in the Reformed church and send their children to the Reformed school established and supported by the duke. The exclusively Reformed character of Birże was only slightly altered in 1635 when his son, Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł, built a church for the Lutherans. The long-​term and sustained efforts of the Radziwiłł family on their Birże-​area estates resulted in a large and enduring Reformed presence among the Lithuanian peasants to this day.61 Calvinist town owners in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had to deal with both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox subjects, and, in some rare cases, Calvinism replaced the last vestiges of paganism. This added a layer of complication when it came to converting their subjects. The Reformed nobles typically did not take over Eastern Orthodox churches but instead attempted to reach their Eastern Orthodox subjects by other means. In Kojdanów, today’s Belarus, the town’s old wooden Orthodox church was left unmolested, but in 1566, the Radziwiłłs built a monumental stone Reformed church edifice, often referred to as a “cathedral.” In 1614, Duke Janusz i Radziwiłł (1579–​1620) ordered the town’s burghers and surrounding peasants to attend the Calvinist church every Sunday and holy day, solemnize their marriages and baptize their children there, and send their children to the Reformed school. The Reformed minister was responsible for making sure that all the duke’s subjects knew the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed, and the Ten Commandments, and did not attend clandestinely any other churches (Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). Moreover, the town’s administrator was to enforce these provisions on the obdurate with fines (which would be given to the Reformed almshouse), prison sentences, and even death. It is clear that not all the subjects in Kojdanów were Reformed and, thus, these provisions applied to the Catholics and the Orthodox alike.62 61 62

E. Bagieńska, “Tolerancja czy przymus wyznaniowy? Z dziejów polityki wyznaniowej Radziwiłłów birżańskich” in: ed. idem, P. Guzowski and M. Liedke, Studia nad Reformacją (Białystok: 2010), 23–​26. Ibid., 26–​28.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

219

His brother, Duke Krzysztof ii issued almost identical laws of religious coercion and Reformed exclusivity on his estates in 1621.63 In 1612, Duke Janusz i Radziwiłł inherited the vast estates of his Eastern Orthodox wife, Duchess Zofia Olekowicz Słucka (1585–​1612). Its seat, the town of Słuck, was an important center of Orthodoxy in the Grand Duchy, with fifteen Orthodox churches and monasteries within the town’s walls. Both the duchess and the duke were diligent in not allowing any Catholic or Uniate presence in town. Due to the town’s population, it was impossible for the duke to outright impose Calvinism on the city and the surrounding villages. Instead, in 1617, he built a wooden Reformed church and settled it with a minister. His brother, Duke Krzysztof ii (1585–​1640), and son, Duke Bogusław (1620–​1669), later expanded the foundation, and by the mid-​seventeenth century, the town had a Reformed church, an almshouse, and most importantly a Calvinist gymnasium. The generosity of subsequent benefactors ensured the church’s and gymnasium’s existence till the Bolsheviks closed them down in 1920. However, the lack of religious coercion meant that while Słuck became one of the centers of Calvinism in the Grand Duchy, at the same time, the town’s Calvinist population was minimal.64 Replacing Roman Catholic worship with Calvinist, as in the Crown, was a pattern in the Grand Duchy. Religious coercion was often strengthened by the influence of a local school to which burghers were ordered to send their children and where salaries were paid by the Reformed owners. This was the case in Szydłów and Poszuszuwie, where Zofia Wnuczkowa established the Reformed faith, and barred her subjects from “popish” influences—​meaning both worship and education. Instead, she generously provided for a new Reformed church and school with endowments for three teachers, who were to educate both the Catholics and the Orthodox, and hopefully in this way, bring the next generations to Calvinism. In the Żmudź town of Kiejdany, the old Roman Catholic church building was turned over to the Protestants in 1549 by Anna Kiszka née Radziwiłł (d. 1600). Later, she and her children embraced Unitarianism and the church followed her, as did some of her subjects. The church returned to the Reformed in the 1590s when the Calvinist Radziwiłłs inherited it. Catholic worship was not reinstated in Kiejdany until 1627, some seventy-​seven years later. Thanks to a settlement between the bishop of Vilnius and Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł, the Catholics regained the town’s old church, but were barred from holding

63 64

AS 1915, xv–​x vi. Bagieńska, “Tolerancja,” 28–​30.

220 

Chapter 9

processions outside of it, and Jesuits were forever forbidden from settling in Kiejdany. The bishop and the duke guaranteed to all of the duke’s subjects the right to freely change their religion and attend the church of their choice. Additionally, that same year, the duke and his wife provided for two new stone Reformed churches in Kiejdany, an almshouse, an orphanage, and a school with salaries for teachers. These generous foundations were meant to reassure and strengthen the town’s Calvinists, now that the Catholics had returned.65 What mattered most was the fact that for eighty years, only Reformed worship was allowed in town. While some of its burghers were Catholic, Orthodox, Unitarian, or Lutheran, many contemporaries saw Kiejdany as an exclusively Reformed town and Lithuania’s Calvinist capital, and there is reason to believe that the indeed the Calvinists were the majority there. By the 1650s, Kiejdany had Reformed services in Polish, Lithuanian, and English (Chapter 7). Kiejdany and its monumental, cathedral-​like Reformed church in the center of town became the seat of the Radziwiłł family, as well as the place of their eternal rest. This further reinforced the political and demographic dominance of the Kiejdany Calvinists. Duke Janusz ii Radziwiłł allowed the Lutherans to build their own church, but in 1650, he chastised them for their lack of religious zeal and piety and ordered that the town’s Lutheran preacher report to and be subject to discipline by Kiejdany’s Reformed superintendent. When in 1668 Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł learned that some of the town’s Reformed burghers were marrying and having their children baptized by a Lutheran minister, he ordered the Reformed superintendent to bring things into order. That Lutheran pastors were subject to scrutiny by Reformed superintendents clearly illustrates the ranking of each denomination in Kiejdany.66 Again, it must be stressed that the Reformed Church in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had legal existence under Lithuanian law. This meant that the pious foundations endured even after the Reformed patrons died or converted to Catholicism and whatever advantages the Reformed had gained were difficult to expunge. This explains why the decline of Calvinism in the Grand Duchy in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was not as drastic as that in Greater or Lesser Poland. Coupled with the elimination of Roman Catholic worship for around seventy to eighty years in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in some areas, this can explain, why, unlike in the Crown, Calvinists managed to produce populations among both burghers and peasants that continue to this day. 65 66

mrpl, vol. 1 (Wilno: 1911), 93–​99, 138–​149; Bagieńska, “Tolerancja,” 30–​32. Ibid., 30–​36.

A Few Sheep Are Better than a Herd of Pigs

221

The Reformed in the Commonwealth never managed to convert the majority of the population to Calvinism. Too many factors worked against them: the brief time most of their congregations existed, the continued presence of the Roman Catholic Church, their impaired legal position. But as I have tried to show, when the circumstances and methods were right, they were as successful as in Western Europe. A good (though not the only) example is the private town of Kossów, mentioned at the opening of this chapter. In 1581, it had 10 craftsmen and 5 peasants, and in 1629, it had just 92 burghers—​it was a tiny town indeed. The nobleman Hieronim Rzeszowski labored there so zealously, and in 1568 so seemingly in vain, for the cause of Calvinism. We do not know if Rzeszowski changed his tactics, if he found a more eloquent pastor (in 1569 there was a dispute in the church between the minister, Wojciech Łaziński, and a Catholic priest), if the education in the local Reformed school was effective—​or if all of those factors worked together to bear fruit. Whatever it was, sometime after 1569, a part Kossów’s population converted to Calvinism. They embraced is with so much zeal that when church building was returned to the Catholics in 1602 by the Tribunal’s order, those burghers remained Calvinist. In 1618 the local priest complained of “frigidos” Catholics who did not partake of the sacraments “because of past errors.” The remaining Calvinists in Kossów backed the town’s Calvinist owners, and the neighboring Reformed congregations (Włoszczowa, Oksa), continued to be present in Kossów until at least 1639. The late Hieronim Rzeszowski would have been pleased.67 67

Urban, “Reformacja we włoszczowskiem,” 304; Urban, Chłopi, 191. It is claimed that there a congregation continued in Kossów until 1639, but there is no mention of it in synodal sources and it seems unlikely it would, without leaving a trace there. Probably, a group of Kossów’s burghers remained Calvinist and attended worship in one of the remaining Calvinist churches in the area. The Rzeszowski, and then the Rej family, remained Calvinist and the town’s owners until 1674.

­c hapter 10

Calvinists in Royal Towns The establishment of Reformed congregations in royal towns—​that is, towns owned by the king and where he exercised the ius patronatus over parish churches—​was much more complicated. Unlike other countries where the monarch converted to Protestantism, Polish kings remained Roman Catholic. This meant that their church patronage rights in royal towns could not be used to tilt the population in the Protestant direction. Additionally, the ecclesiastical estates in the realm were never confiscated and could not be used to spread Protestant teachings. The Catholic Church, as a result, enjoyed an enduring (although not always unchallenged) presence in all royal towns of the Commonwealth. The Protestants had two options: either city authorities clandestinely embraced Protestantism, working with sympathetic clergy to “Protestantize” the city from within and waiting for the right moment to secure the right to officially embrace Protestantism, or they had to rely on noble and rich burgher support to establish congregations parallel to Roman Catholic structures. The first option was used in Royal Prussia quite successfully—​in the 1550s and 1560s, King Zygmunt ii August was happy to grant those towns freedom of worship and conscience based on the Augsburg Confession (Chapter 11). But for most royal towns in the realm this was not an option. While individual burghers and even city councilors might have been sympathetic to the Reformation, the Catholic Church remained firmly in control of both the church buildings and the souls of the burghers. On June 14, 1562, King Zygmunt ii issued a royal charter to the Calvinist congregation in Witebsk in the Grand Duchy, near the Muscovy border. Responding to a request from the local nobles, city councilors, burghers, and peasants, he allowed the Calvinists in Witebsk to build their own church for worship and to keep a minister and teacher within the city walls; he also ordered the local palatine (himself a Calvinist) not to inhibit them in any way. The sole restriction was that the Calvinists were not allowed to seize or convert any Catholic or Orthodox churches for their own use. The caveat stemmed, no doubt, from the king’s unhappy experiences in the Crown. But it also demonstrates how the monarch viewed religious accommodation in his realm in the 1560s. The Protestants were to supplement the existing religious diversity and not replace it. They would receive full freedom of worship and belief from the king but could not count on anything more. They

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_011

Calvinists in Royal Towns

223

would become one of many religions living in the Commonwealth under royal ­protection.1 In the Grand Duchy, congregations were often first established in the individual residences of the magnates. In Witebsk, the Reformed church was built on a plot donated by Duke Paweł Drucki-​Sokoliński (d. c. 1575). The Radziwiłłs supplied the buildings for the first church in Vilnius as well as in Brześć Litewski. Later, other nobles would establish and endow congregations in other locations. The royal cities with Reformed congregations in the Grand Duchy were Mińsk (until after 1703), Nowogródek (untill 1662), Połock (untill 1658), Rossienie (untill 1728), Upita (untill the 1630s), and Witebsk (untill 1658), as well as a few others.2 The endurance of the Reformed congregations was aided by the fact that after 1588, the Reformed churches in the Grand Duchy gained legal recognition under the Lithuanian law. In the Crown outside of Royal Prussia, Reformed churches were removed from royal towns in 1632 under the pretext that their existence caused religious riots. In the Grand Duchy, most remained until the devastating 1658–​1660 war with Muscovy, and some continued until the eighteenth century. Legal recognition under the Third Lithuanian Statute meant that even after the conversion of the patrons, the congregations could continue to function as worshiping communities and own property. This advantage was most visible during the 1640 case of the Reformed Church in Vilnius. King Władysław iv Waza and the Catholic party humiliated the Vilnius Reformed by ordering the removal of the church and its facilities outside the city walls, but they could not suppress it altogether, as they did with the Unitarian church and institutions in Raków in the Crown.3 Unfortunately, most of the church records from these congregations are lost, but we know that they gathered not only nobles living in the vicinities and in the towns themselves, but also local burghers. The 1564 royal charter to the Witebsk congregation explicitly lists mayors, city councilors, and burghers as petitioning the monarch for a Reformed church in the city. Thirty years later, the son of the first benefactor to the church, Duke Jerzy Drucki-​Sokoliński (d. 1606), endowed the congregation further with a house and a garden and mentioned “deacons and elders” of the congregation—​which clearly illustrates 1 mrpl, vol. 1 (Wilno: 1911), 7–​8. The congregation in Witebsk existed until 1658 when the Muscovy forces captured the town, massacred most of the inhabitants, and took the minister and his family as captives to Russia, where they perished. Merczyng, Zbory, 102. 2 H. Lulewicz, Paweł Sokoliński (zm. ok. 1575), PSB, vol. 40 (2000), 49–​50; Merczyng, Zbory, 91–​96, 100, 102. 3 Ibid., 101–​102.

224 

Chapter 10

that it was large enough to fill these posts. The church had a prominent and visible location below the royal castle and in the city square. A 1588 donation made by the widowed castellan Barbara Snowska to the Reformed church in Nowogródek lists five elders of that congregation: three nobles and two burghers, which may reflect the makeup of the congregation itself. Their exact number cannot be known, but we may assume that royal towns with Reformed Churches in the Grand Duchy had some burghers among their faithful.4 We know that the Vilnius congregation had burgher members who were Polish, German, Scottish, and Huguenot. Synodical records from 1615 list 12 noble and 10 burghers as elders of the Vilnius Calvinist congregation. These numbers remained the same in 1629, though the latter lists 11 burgher elders divided between the Polish (6) and German (5) congregants.5 Vilnius’ four deacons were drawn solely from the burgher class.6 The legal status guaranteed by Lithuanian law, as well as the magnate patronage of the Calvinist Radziwiłłs (who were often palatines of Vilnius) and the local Reformed nobles, meant that Vilnius had a thriving and influential population of Calvinist burghers decades after any royal town in the Crown. In 1615, Paweł Paskiewicz, a burgher elder of the Reformed congregation, was the city’s mayor. Calvinist burgher families of Dessaus, Mones, Paszkiewicz, Winhold, and others formed a tight-​knit network whose members continued to sit on the town council. The role of the Vilnius Calvinists was visible by the fact that their church was prominently located just opposite the royal castle, and between two Roman Catholic churches and two Uniate ones—​which ultimately was the cause of its demise. Just before the 1639 tumult, the congregation owned nine houses on the street next to it (called “Calvinist Street”) and at least two other houses elsewhere. There were also buildings for the school and the almshouse.7 The decline of Vilnius’s Calvinists began with the 1639 tumult and the subsequent 1640 Sejm’s decree removing the congregation to outside the city walls. When the Calvinist Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł, palatine of Vilnius, died later that same year, his Uniate successor Janusz Skumin-​Tyszkiewicz (1572–​1642) purged the city court of Calvinists. Their fortunes recovered slightly after his death and even the 1640 verdict did not immediately mean their exclusion from city authorities. It was the political demise of the Calvinist line of the 4 mrpl, vol. 1 (Wilno: 1911), 7–​11, 122; H. Lulewicz, Jerzy Sokoliński (zm.1606), PSB, vol. 40 (2000), 39–​42; idem, Malcher Snowski (zm. 1587), PSB, vol. 39, (1999), 408–​410. 5 AS 1915, 34; AS 2011, 62–​63. 6 AS 1915, 35; AS 2011, 63–​64. 7 AS 1915, 26, 34, 44, 53; Frick, Kith, 8–​9, 50–​54; idem, Wilnianie, 11–​32, 185–​195.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

225

Radziwiłłs and the destruction of Vilnius by Muscovy forces in 1655 that finally undid them. In 1666, King Jan ii Kazimierz Waza issued three decrees tellingly described as “after the fashion of Cracow” in which he restricted the seats on city council to Roman Catholics and Uniate Catholics. The last Calvinist councilor, Henryk Mones (d. 1666), was allowed to finish the remainder of his term, but thereafter Vilnius city council was to be free of heretics and schismatics. Nonetheless, Calvinists and Lutherans continued to play an important part in life in Vilnius until the eighteenth century.8 The situation in royal towns within the Crown was more precarious: with no legal recognition, they relied on both noble protection and royal tolerance. A nobleman’s patronage was required to gather a congregation, to house it, and later (post-​1570) to defend it—​legally and physically. Even where congregations were composed predominantly of burghers, noble protection remained crucial to their existence. In the early stages of the Reformation, thanks to the policy of King Zygmunt ii August, burghers in royal towns could rely on the support of Protestant captains to shield them from Catholic persecution while they gathered congregations. There are several cases in Greater Poland where the support of Protestant captains helped to effect a Protestant city conversion or create a lasting Protestant congregation—​Radziejów (in Kujawy) and Wschowa (Greater Poland). But with the accession of King Stefan Batory, these advantages dissipated: after 1582 he began to withhold Protestant nominations to the posts of captains and in 1585, blatantly refused religious toleration to Protestants in royal towns. With royal tolerance gone—​their days were ­numbered.9 The royal city of Wschowa was the smallest of any of royal possesions in Greater Poland. The captains from the Górski family converted to Lutheranism around 1550 and began to promote it in Wschowa with the support of the town councilors. After the death of the city’s Catholic priest in 1552, the town’s councilors replaced him with a Lutheran pastor and began the process of turning Wschowa into a Lutheran town. The remaining Catholics gathered around the Bernadine monastery, but the convent was set on fire in 1558 after its preacher denounced the leader of the Lutheran clergy. The monks and nuns left and, in 1564, King Zygmunt ii August allowed the sale of their property. The local Protestant nobles purchased it and promptly resold it to the city. Lutheranism became the sole religion in Wschowa. The Catholic chronicle admits that the population embraced Protestantism voluntarily and that the monks 8 Frick, Kith, 8–​9. 9 K. Bem, “Czynnik wyznaniowy w polityce nominacyjnej Stefana Batorego na starostwa grodowe w Koronie—​początek kontrreformacji?,” KH 122 (2015): 457–​473.

226 

Chapter 10

were unable to stop “the incurable and hopeless pestilence, heretical cockle, ill-​­fated evil.”10 For unknown reasons, Wschowa’s Lutherans never attempted to gain—​or were not successful in obtaining—​a royal charter guaranteeing them the freedom to practice Lutheranism as in Royal Prussia. Soon clouds began to gather around them. In 1577, the King Stefan Batory, using his ius patronatus to the town church, named the Catholic Maciej Grzembski as Wschowa’s priest. Using legal tricks and maneuvers, the town council stalled the inevitable. In 1588, King Zygmunt iii nominated the first Roman Catholic captain of Wschowa. Due to the religious composition of the city, the restoration of Catholic worship was delayed. However, in 1604, the Catholic Church regained possession of the town’s church. Further lawsuits continued until 1607 when the parties reached a settlement: The Catholic Church regained the endowments of the town’s main church. The Lutherans could build their own church, but with strict limits upon its location and time frame for construction. With the help of the local nobles, they built an impressive edifice called ‘Christ’s Cradle’ and consecrated it in 1607. Wschowa remained overwhelmingly Lutheran until 1945. It is necessary to point out that the endurance of Wschowa’s Protestantism post-​1607 can be attributed not just to the town’s total Lutheranization, but also to the fact that until the end of the seventeenth century, the captains were Catholic men with Lutheran spouses who worshipped at the Christ’s ­Cradle church.11 The Calvinist church in the royal town of Radziejów was established in 1554 when Rafał Leszczyński (1526–​1592), the local captain, built for them a new church, and called as its first minister Andrzej Prażmowski (d. 1592). The congregation in Radziejów had a school with 40 students and three professors in 1598, and it became the capital of the Kujawy Calvinists. In 1598, the congregation numbered 20 burgher families among the church members. The Reformed church existed until 1615 due to support from both nobles and burghers, despite the fact that the local captains became Catholic. In 1614, a Catholic mob stormed the building and carried away the church bell, a symbolic gesture of silencing the Reformed. In 1615, the local bishop took the church

10 11

A. Pańczak, „Działalność rekatolicyzacyjna wschowskich bernardynów,” in ed. P.  Klint and M.  Małkus and K.Szymańska, Ziemia Wschowska w czasach starosty Hieronima Radomickiego (Wschowa-​Leszno 2009), 315. Ibid., 317–​319; J. Pawłowska, “Zabiegi Hieronima Radomickiego o powrót wschowskich bernardynów do Wschowy w świetle ich kroniki,” in ed. Klint, Małkus and Szymańska, Ziemia Wschowska, 363–​367.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

227

itself by force and consecrated it as for Catholic worship under the pretext that it stood on royal, that is, Roman Catholic, ground.12 In Greater Poland, it appeared that the Protestants would take control of Poznań when the devout member of the Brethren, Jakub Ostroróg (d. 1568), became the general captain of Greater Poland. In 1567, he nominated a city council with a Protestant majority. These dreams were dashed when he died a year later, and the bishop of Poznań secured a decree from the monarch allowing only Catholics to be mayors, councilors, and guild elders. Nevertheless, by the end of the sixteenth century, Poznań had a large Lutheran congregation and two Brethren congregations: one Polish-​speaking and one German-​speaking, each with its own church building and a house in the city for its use. Cautious estimates give their number at about 500 adults by the end of the sixteenth century—​perhaps 1,500 adults and children all told. In a town of around 15,000 inhabitants they were a minority. The number of Poznań’s Reformed did rise in the early seventeenth century with the arrival of Scottish merchants—​most of whom were Calvinist and who contributed generously to the needs of the congregation. After the 1616 tumult, the Reformed congregations were suppressed and removed from within the city walls. Lutheran services were moved to the nearby private town of Swarzędz, owned by the Brethren member Zygmunt Grudziński (1568–​1655). Reformed services were removed to Skoki, a private town forty kilometers to the north. Unlike the Lutherans, Poznan’s Reformed were too small and too poor to build a new church and support a minister on their own, and Grudziński refused to make up the difference from his own pocket. The Poznań Calvinists continued to worship in Skoki until the 1710 epidemic decimated their numbers. Reformed worship returned to Poznan in 1778.13 We know very little about the Reformed congregation in the city of Kalisz where some of the burghers had converted to Protestantism. Around 1560, the palatine Marcin Zborowski established the Calvinist congregation there. The faithful probably gathered for worship in his residence, but we are not certain, and only one name of a minister from 1573 survives. In the 1580s, the city’s Protestants were under the protection of Rafał Leszczyński (1526–​1592) and had their own cemetery. In 1582, the Kalisz canons wrote melodramatically that they were “surrounded by heretics.”14 12 Merczyng, Zbory, 38; U.  Augustyniak, Państwo świeckie czy księże? Spór o rolę duchowieństwa katolickiego w Rzeczpospolitej w czasach Zygmunta III Wazy. Wybór tekstów (Warszawa: 2013), 184, 369. 13 Bajer, Scots, 255–​259; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 102, 182; O.  Kiec, Historia Protestantyzmu w Poznaniu od XVI do XXI wieku (Poznań: 2015), 24–​34. 14 W. Urban, “Z dziejów reformacji w dawnym powiecie kaliskim,” in Et Haec, 283.

228 

Chapter 10

In 1581, the tide turned with the arrival of the Jesuits. During the Sejm of 1585, Kalisz was one of the royal cities in which King Stefan Batory refused the nobles’ demand for freedom of worship. In the 1590s, the Jesuits secured provisions that barred Protestants from becoming Kalisz burghers, and their reports from 1580 through the 1600s list approximately ten “heretics” converted per year (burghers, noblemen, and students in their academy). Probably around that time, the congregation ceased to have its own minister and began to rely on the Brethren pastors from Gołuchów, a private town nearby owned by the Leszczyński family. After the closure of the Brethren church in Gołuchów in 1601, the Kalisz congregation dispersed and slowly assimilated. The Brethren palatine of Kalisz, Zygmunt Grudziński (1568–​1655), known for his stinginess about church expenses, certainly did not provide for a pastor, though he did shield the remaining Protestants from violence.15 We know almost nothing about the Protestants in Wieluń, on the Silesian border. There were numerous Reformed nobles living in the area who worshipped in the nearby congregations of Działoszyn and Parcice, but the local captains were staunch Catholics. The Protestant burghers in Wieluń appear to have been predominantly Lutheran, with a handful of Calvinist Scots. We know of the congregation’s end during the “Deluge”:  On June 6, 1656, a battalion of Polish soldiers under Krzysztof Żegocki (1618–​1673), later bishop of Chełmno, entered Wieluń and slaughtered all the Protestants: men, women, and children. The Lutheran pastor was beheaded, his limbs cut off, and his body thrown to the dogs. The violence and plunder extended to the Catholic burghers as well, although the Protestants were the primary targets.16 The pattern of dependence on noble support in royal towns is also apparent in Lesser Poland. In Chęciny, the local captain Stanisław Dembiński (d. 1586) aggressively promoted Calvinism among the burghers and peasants and was able to establish a congregation large enough to take over Chęciny’s main church and share the use of the old Franciscan church with its previous owners. After Dembiński’s death, the Reformed congregation continued to exist, but in 1597, it lost the main town church when king Zygmunt iii and the new Roman Catholic captain presented the benefice to an energetic priest. The end came in 1603, when another Roman Catholic captain returned the old Franciscan church to the Catholics and suppressed the Calvinist congregation.17 15 16 17

Dyaryusze sejmowe z r.  1585, 271; Urban, “Z dziejów reformacji w dawnym powiecie kaliskim,” 287–​288. Z. Guldon, “Stefan Czarniecki a mniejszości etniczne i wyznaniowe w Polsce,” in ed. W. Kowalski, Stefan Czarniecki: 108–​109. W. Urban, “Reformacja w Chęcińskiem,” in: VII wieków Chęcin. Materiały sesji naukowej 24 V 1975, (Kielce: 1976), 100–​103; Wijaczka, “Protestantyzm,” 19–​20.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

229

The 1582 Lublin district visitation mentions Calvinist burghers (including the mayor) from the royal city of Bełz. Yet they worshipped not in the city itself, but in the nearby rural Calvinist congregation of Przemysłów. The local captain of Bełz, chancellor Jan Zamoyski, was a Catholic convert, and he did not allow Calvinist worship in the city. In Wiślica, Lesser Poland, the captains were Calvinists from the 1550s until 1585, but other than refusing to help the Roman Catholic priests collect tithes from burghers, they did nothing to promote Protestantism, and Wiślica remained Calvinist-​free. Similarly, despite having a number of Calvinist burghers—​even mayors—​the royal town of Biecz never established a Reformed congregation of its own.18 Some Calvinist presence was noted in Ciążkowice until the 1600s, in Jasło and Żarnowiec until at least 1597, in Olkusz and Lwów around the 1560s, and in several other communities. After the brief period of Zygmunt ii August’s reign, opportunities to spread Protestantism ceased because his successors pursued a policy of forbidding Protestant propaganda in royal cities.19 In Krosno, a wealthy royal town in Ruthenia near Hungary and Slovakia with merchants holding numerous connections to those lands, Protestants were present in the town from the mid-​sixteenth to the mid-​seventeenth centuries. Despite the fact that the town’s richest burgher, Robert Gilbert Porteous de Lanxeth (1600–​1661)—​in Polish “Wojciech Porcjusz”—​was a Scottish Calvinist from Dundee, no Reformed church was established there. Porcjusz converted to Catholicism before 1630 and became a generous benefactor to Krosno’s main church, but even after his conversion he employed many Presbyterian Scots: as late as in 1660 we hear of a deathbed conversion of one of his servants from Calvinism. Protestant Poles, Germans, Hungarians, and Scots living in town had to attend the numerous nearby rural Reformed congregations for worship. The lack of support from either the town’s owner (the king) or a powerful noble proved an insurmountable impediment for the establishment of a Reformed congregation in Krosno.20 The most telling example of the failure of Calvinism to penetrate the ranks of burghers in royal cities is the case of Sandomir. Despite having palatines and captains who were Calvinist or Calvinist sympathizers from 1554 to 1587, and despite being the location where the Reformed adopted the Consensus, 18

asr iii, 66–​68; Tomczak, Walenty Dembiński, 156–​158; W. Urban, “Z dziejów reformacji w Wiślicy,” in Et Haec, 233–​246. 19 Urban, Chłopi, 171–​208, 237. 20 S. Cynarski, “Krosno w XVII i XVIII wieku,” in ed. Józef Grabacik, Krosno. Studia z dziejów miasta i regionu (do roku 1918), vol. 1, (Kraków: 1972), 218–​224; Bajer, Scots, 202–​208; Kowalski, Great, 14.

230 

Chapter 10

Sandomir never had any Reformed burgher presence.21 The same is true for the city of Radom, where almost all of the captains between 1553 and 1608 were Calvinist, but where no Reformed congregation was ever formed.22 A Protestant congregation’s existence in a royal town depended upon the goodwill of the monarch—​and after 1572, goodwill towards Protestantism among the monarchs became increasingly rare. King Stefan Batory used his royal ius patronatus to nominate zealous Roman Catholic priests to churches seized by Protestants in the previous decades. After 1582, he began a policy of withholding Protestant nominations to the post of captain and issued a number of edicts restricting the rights of Protestants in royal towns. Things came to a head in 1585 when, during the Sejm, Protestant deputies began to complain about the situation in royal towns and demanded full freedom of worship there. The king, backed by the Catholic bishops, refused. He claimed that as king he was their owner and had full discretion to regulate religious policy within royal domains—​just as a nobleman had on his estates. This argument was resisted by the Protestant nobles in the 1590s, who insisted, “cities [are] the Commonwealth’s, and [not] puri hereditarii king’s Royal Majesty’s dominii.”23 But the monarchs continued with their policies. An historian of the Jesuits recorded that in 1668, after retaking the city of Połock from Muscovy, the ex-​Jesuit King Jan ii Kazimierz Waza, as “the lord of Połock,” gave the plot where the Calvinist church used to stand to the Jesuits.24 This act was carried out despite the fact that the Protestant pastor was alive in town; it also ignored the congregation’s legal rights under Lithuanian law. The example of three major royal cities of the Crown—​Warsaw, Cracow, and Lublin—​serve to illustrate the limitations the Reformation encountered in royal cities in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, their dependence on noble patronage for their continued ability to function, and how the lack of royal support and protection undermined their long-​term existence.25 Warsaw, together with the principality of Mazowsze, was incorporated into the Crown in 1525. Initially a rather small and peripheral town, its role began to change by the end of the sixteenth century due to its central location on the route from the Crown to Vilnius. Parliaments began to meet there and King

21

Urzędnicy województwa sandomierskiego XVI-​XVIII wieku. Spisy, (Kórnik: 1993), 117–​118, 123–​124. 22 Urzędnicy, 78–​79. 23 Augustyniak, Państwo, 182–​183, 329. 24 Załęski, Jezuici, t. IV, 205. 25 Dyaryusze sejmowe z r.  1585, 270–​273; Augustyniak, Państwo, 39–​44; Bem, “Czynnik,” 457–​473; Urban, Chłopi, 49–​50.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

231

Zygmunt ii August, who disliked Cracow, spent the better part of the years 1569 to 1572 there. After 1572, the city was chosen as the place of royal elections. By the early seventeenth century and under the Waza kings, it became the Commonwealth’s capital and grew to become one of the realm’s largest cities. It was only natural that Warsaw would attract not just burghers and immigrants from abroad, but also the still-​numerous Protestant nobles from the realm, especially during the Sejm’s sessions and during royal elections. There was only one problem: Two weeks before his death in 1525, the last duke of Mazowsze, issued an edict forbidding his subjects to possess any heretical books or to belong to “the Lutheran heresy.” Anyone found in violation of this law was to be executed. It was, as Schramm pointed out, the strictest edict against Protestantism issued in the realm. The edict was not reaffirmed when Mazowsze was incorporated to the Crown, but until the 1760s the Catholic Church and the Mazowsze nobles insisted the edict was in force and that it proscribed any Protestant worship in Warsaw.26 There are few mentions of Protestant burghers living in Warsaw before the 1560s. Around 1564 Reformed services were held in the residence of Anzelm Gostomski (d. 1588), the castellan of Rawa, and under the protection of the Calvinist captain of Warsaw, Zygmunt Wolski (d. 1574). The noble residence gave the congregation the necessary legal protection, and burghers were known to attend worship there. But the services were Reformed and not Lutheran. Following the death of King Zygmunt ii in 1572, Warsaw’s Lutherans (primarily German immigrants) called their own minister from Royal Prussia. They could not have picked a worse time: The Calvinist captain died and the Princess Royal Anna, together with the papal nuncio, prevailed upon the city council to expel the Lutheran pastor and prohibit Warsaw’s burghers from attending any Protestant worship on pain of fines and banishment. Protestants were also to be barred from the city’s citizenship. The Lutheran pastor sought refuge at the residence of palatine Gostomski where the services continued. After he left, the city council insisted that Warsaw’s Lutherans cease to look for his replacement (1577). In 1578, thanks to the Calvinist influence with the senators, the Sejm ordered that Protestants be allowed to possess city citizenship and to sit on Warsaw’s city council.27 The role of the Protestant nobles cannot be overestimated. They not only provided the necessary cover and patronage for Warsaw’s Protestant burghers, but also tried to steer the town’s two congregations, Reformed and Lutheran,

26 27

G. Schramm, “Problem Reformacji w Warszawie w XVI wieku,” PH 54 (1963): 557. Ibid., 561–​563.

232 

Chapter 10

into accepting the Sandomir Consensus. The new pastor, brought to Warsaw in 1578 and installed in the Gostomski residence, was Piotr Artomiusz (1558–​ 1609). Raised a Lutheran and a graduate of Wittenberg University, he was an ardent supporter of the Sandomir Consensus, as well as increasingly Calvinist in his theology (Chapter 11). Due to his preaching, the Lutheran influence waned, Calvinism grew, and he established a regular congregation composed of nobles and burghers of Polish, German, and Scottish stock.28 In 1579, the new Calvinist captain of Warsaw, Jerzy Niemsta (d. 1583), prepared to build a Reformed church within city walls. The Catholics alerted King Stefan through the queen, and he ordered Niemsta to suspend the work. This was a temporary setback, and the exasperated papal nuncio Laureo complained that Protestant services were being continually held in the Gostomski residence. The king refused the nuncio’s pleas to expel Artomiusz, claiming it would cause social unrest, but simultaneously confirmed the Warsaw city council’s resolutions banning Protestants from citizenship (1580). The Protestants did not give up, and in the months leading to the 1581 Sejm, Niemsta resumed the construction of the church edifice. The presence of numerous Protestant nobles provided the necessary protection, and according to some sources, the building was almost completed and lacked only a roof. However, as soon as the Sejm ended and the deputies and the monarch left, with the backing of Queen Anna and the chancellor Jan Zamoyski, a mob stormed the construction and destroyed the church building. Fearing for his life, Artomiusz fled Warsaw. The elated nuncio Bolognetti now pressed the king to remove Niemsta from his post as Warsaw’s captain and replace him with a Roman Catholic. The king demurred but promised to replace him with a Catholic in the future. Niemsta died in early 1583 and Batory then fulfilled his promise. Moreover, in 1583 he issued an edict forbidding any Warsaw burghers from attending Protestant services on pain of banishment and confiscation of property.29 How strictly this mandate was enforced is unclear. Calvinist services continued in the Gostomski residence until the death of Stanisław Gostomski in 1598, and numerous Protestant burghers, Germans and Scots, lived in Warsaw well into the seventeenth century. However, 1598 marked the end of an organized Reformed congregation in in Warsaw. Although Calvinist services continued to be held in noble residences during the Sejm sessions, there were no more attempts to form a permanent

28

Ibid., 563–​565; J.  Małłek, “O Piotrze Artomiuszu, pastorze NMP w Toruniu i jego twórczości,” Linguistica Copernicana 8 (2012): 39–​41. 29 Bajer, Scots, 232–​233, 275; Bem, “Czynnik,” 469–​470; Schramm, “Problem” 565–​569.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

233

congregation until the mid-​eighteenth century. Regular Reformed worship returned to Warsaw in 1768.30 Cracow was the realm’s largest city up until the 1650s and until the end of the sixteenth century, was the seat of the monarch. Near the turn of the seventeenth century, Cracow had between 34,000 and 37,000 inhabitants. The city and its satellites were quite diverse ethnically: about seventy-​seven percent of its inhabitants were Polish, ten percent were Jewish, eight percent German, and two percent Italian, with smaller groups of French, Hungarians, Swedes, and Scots. The Reformation in Cracow could trace its intellectual movement to when burghers and nobles who travelled to Western Europe returned with Reform-​ inclined ideas and shared them with friends and neighbors. According to Cracow’s pastor and historian, Wojciech Węgierski (1604–​1659), the first sign of an organized congregation dates from 1557. That year, the Lesser Poland synod appointed Grzegorz Paweł from Brzeziny as the Polish preacher there. A year later, another pastor, Daniel Ślęzak, was appointed minister for the German-​ speaking congregants. Soon, a third pastor was added, to minister to the growing Polish-​speaking faithful. The first place of worship was the residence of Jan Bonar (d. 1562), castellan of Biecz. Another nobleman donated his garden for establishing the cemetery, dubbed by Catholic authorities the “dog’s mound.” Protestant preaching attracted crowds of curious burghers and noblemen, but growth of the congregation was inhibited by two events. The first was the deposition of both Polish pastors for anti-​Trinitarian sympathies in 1561. They were replaced in 1562 with the energetic Szymon Zacjusz, whom Radziwiłł the Black expelled from Lithuania for not supporting Unitarianism. Secondly, after the death of castellan Bonar, services were moved from one residence to another, which did little to stabilize the congregation. On August 8, 1569, King Zygmunt ii August issued a royal charter for the official establishment of a Reformed cemetery within city walls, as well as permission to build an almshouse and a school. In 1570, the congregation purchased its own building, called the “Bróg.” That occasion also marked the election of the first elders: three nobles and eight burghers were chosen, as were five deacons (all of whom were burghers), no doubt reflecting the makeup of the congregation. That same year, Andrzej Prażmowski was called from Radziejów to Cracow, and served as pastor. In 1572, King Zygmunt ii August issued a royal charter to the congregation based on the Sandomir Confession and officially acknowledged its existence. The Protestants reached their numerical peak at 30 Lepszy, Stanisław Gostomski, PSB, 366–​367.

234 

Chapter 10

that time with between 2,000 and 3,000 members. Protestantism also enjoyed support among the ruling elite. Writing in 1577, the Jesuit Grodzicki claimed that among Cracow’s patricians, both male and female, only one in ten did not ridicule purgatory, the adoration of saints or demand communion in both kinds.31 While Calvinists held the post of the palatine of Cracow in the 1550s and 1560s, they introduced Calvinists to the city council. The ardently Calvinist palatine Stanisław Myszkowski (d. 1570) was known to promote a number of Protestant city councilors. For many years he also supported the villain Erazm Czeczotka (d. 1587), city councilor and mayor. When not plotting assassinations or seducing someone’s wife, Czeczotka was rumored to have Protestant sympathies, and to hold the Catholic church’s teachings—​both theological and moral—​in disdain. During the 1568 visitation of St. Mary’s Church in Cracow, one of the priests complained that Czeczotka settled in the almshouse unqualified people who did not take Catholic communion, as well as “a few heretics.”32 With Myszkowski’s death, Czeczotka lost an important patron and he scaled back his support for Protestantism—​although not his vices—​and he died formally a Catholic. Once more-​orthodox Catholics took over the palatine post in the mid-​1570s, fewer and fewer Protestants were brought on to the Cracow city council: the last one joined in 1598, after which it became an exclusively Catholic body. Czeczotka’s actions show how important noble support was in royal towns for the spread of the Reformation, as it would trickle down to city councilors, and then to local civic institutions. Conversely, when it was lacking, it kept the spread of Calvinism in check.33 The royal charter of 1572 and the General Synod of 1573 held in Cracow were the last good news for the congregation for a long time. With the changing theological attitudes at royal court, patrician support for Calvinism began to erode. Even the 1577 observation by Grodzicki illustrates that, although the majority of Cracow’s patricians had Protestant sympathies, most nonetheless remained within the fold of the Catholic Church, or like Czeczotka, quietly returned to the Roman Catholic fold. During the second interregnum in 1574, 31 32 33

Kronika Zboru, 58–​66; Kowalski, Great, 155; W. Urban, “Heretycy w parafii mariackiej w Krakowie,” OiRwP 32 (1987), 167–​168. J. Muczkowski, Erazm Czeczotka-​Tłokiński (zm. 1587), PSB, vol. 4 (1938), 317–​318; Urban, “Heretycy,” 177. Ibid., 167–​177; Z.  Noga, “Krakowska Rada miejska a reformacja,” in Reformacja w Krakowie (XVI-​XVII w.). Materiały z sesji naukowej 6 maja 2017 (Kraków: 2018), 48–​51. He also makes a point that despite having Protestants on the city council, they had little influence in spreading Calvinism in Cracow or protecting it from violence in the 1570s and 1590s.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

235

the Bróg church was looted for the first time. The 1570s also began a tradition of the Cracow plebeians attacking Protestant funeral processions. Despite King Stefan Batory’s confirmation of the royal charter to the congregation in 1578, the church was attacked again in 1587. The next monarch, King Zygmunt iii Waza, did not renew the royal charter and the congregation now existed in legal limbo. In 1591, the Bróg building was sacked and completely destroyed. When the elders and nobles requested an inquiry into the disturbances and permission to rebuild it with a royal guarantee of its safety, they were probably trying to corner the king into renewing the charter. The shrewd monarch disingenuously granted the first request but left the second with ominous silence. The Calvinist castellan of Cracow, Seweryn Bonar (d. 1592) did nothing—​due to lack of talent, effort, or both—​to protect his co-​religionists in the face of the monarch’s disfavor. Without a royal charter, the Reformed did not dare to rebuild the destroyed church building, and the plot of land where it lay stood in ruins until 1620. That year the king gave it as abandoned property (kaduk) to a Catholic favorite of his, who promptly donated it to a religious order. It was only in the 1620 donation that the king mockingly used the Protestant expression for a church building—​“zbór”—​in a document sealing its destruction and erasure from the public sphere. Little wonder the Cracow Reformed congregation had problems attracting quality pastors: In 1605 the faithful pled in vain with the Brethren to send them the young and energetic Jan Turnowski (1567–​1629). Instead, they were given Michael Eisenmenger, who was to serve as both Polish and German preacher. He proved to be a divisive figure and congregational life was rife with conflicts between the Polish-​and German-​speaking congregants. Around 1592, the services were moved outisde Cracow city walls to the nearby village of Aleksandrowice, where it was hoped the faithful would have more protection from the mob. The Reformed almshouse within the city walls was destroyed in 1607, and the cemetery was desecrated. By 1600, the number of Protestant burghers in Cracow had shrunk to 400. In 1615, exasperated by the continuing anti-​ Protestant tumults, a number them left Cracow and settled in Toruń, further weakening the congregation.34 The first attempts to reverse the decline of Cracow’s congregation were made in 1575 when the local Reformed district synod ordered it to apply church discipline to wayward members and explicitly subjugated the German-​ speaking preacher to the Polish one. A year later, new elders and deacons were 34

Kronika Zboru, 76–​99.

236 

Chapter 10

chosen: this time, they were only burghers. Węgierski stated that this was the result of the continued diminishing in size of the Polish congregation, both noble and burgher. Unfortunately, the next round of tumults and the removal of the church to Aleksandrowice stalled any progress these actions could have achieved. The next election of elders took place in 1586, and the following in 1600, although they were meant to occur every three years.35 The Cracow congregation turned a corner for the better after 1609. That year, following a visitation ordered by the provincial synod in Włoszczowa, new elections for elders were held: two nobles, four Polish burghers, six German burghers, and two French burghers were chosen. The goal was to achieve balance amongst the elders from three nations. In 1610, a new pastor, Andrzej Herman (c. 1581–​1630), was appointed. He preached in both Polish and German and his faithful twenty years of ministry stabilized the congregation. Regular election of elders resumed in 1616 and, by then, parity among the three nations was no longer necessary to defuse conflicts, although records continued to refer to Scottish, German, and Polish “nations.” In 1614, the church services and the pastor’s residence were moved to the village of Wielkanoc, where they remained until 1818. Before the “Deluge,” the Cracow congregation had stabilized at around 300 members, primarily from Polish, German, and Scottish backgrounds.36 Outside of Royal Prussia, the Reformed congregation to have the longest existence in a royal city in the Crown was that of Lublin, Lesser Poland. The city had approximately 8,000 inhabitants around the turn of the seventeenth century, reaching its peak around 1616 with almost 11,000 burghers. As one of the seats of the Crown Tribunal, it played an important part in the political life of the realm. The Lublin palatine was one of the most heavily Protestantized of the Crown. The first mention of an existing congregation in Lublin comes from 1560, when the synod named Stanisław Paklepka (d. 1567) as its minister. The congregation worshipped in the residence of the nominally Catholic palatine, Stanisław Tęczyński. The growth of the congregation stalled when, in 1565, Paklepka joined the Polish Brethren. Following his death, no regular services were held until 1570, when the Unitarians reconstituted their congregation. The Reformed took longer to rebuild, and Calvinist services were held in noble-​owned neighboring villages. Finally, during the May 1595 district synod, the Reformed moved the Lublin congregation to the mansion of Adam Gorajski (d. 1602). Later, the Reformed bought their own house for a church building in 35 Ibid., 96, 98–​99; Kowalski, Great, 158–​159. 36 Kronika Zboru, 99–​116; Bajer, Scots, 259–​264; Kowalski, Great, 155–​158.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

237

the center of town. It was probably because of the 1565–​1594 interval that the Lublin congregation never secured a royal charter.37 These moves show the increasingly confident presence of the Reformed, whose minister from 1594 to 1596 was the young and energetic Krzysztof Kraiński. The congregation swelled with the arrival of Scottish and German merchants in town, and around 1610, it was as numerous as the Calvinist congregation in Cracow. The rising importance of the immigrant burghers (Scots and Germans) in the Lublin congregation can be gleaned from the 1615 polemic of the Calvinist-​turned-​Unitarian Andrzej Chrząstowski. Pointing to the introduction of a railing for those who wished to kneel while receiving Communion, he mocked the Calvinists: “I ask you, how long ago has it come to pass, [Communion] tables in churches fenced with bars or columns? It is only under you that these pranks began to occur. And why do you not have them in other churches and never had before? (…) When I talked with him [Rev. Jakub Grzybowski, the Reformed Lublin district superintendent] in Lublin, when these pranks were being erected (…) he said to me: ‘I myself see that these are unnecessary things, but merchants want it so, and I have to please them.’ ”38 Even accounting for Chrząstowski’s religious bias, the fact that the superintendent chose to ignore a nobleman’s objections and to ally with merchants shows the clout of burghers in that congregation. In 1602, there were six elders: two Poles, two Germans, and two Scots. In the 1640s, the four elders were divided between the Scots and the Germans equally—​the number of Polish Reformed burghers must have decreased significantly. By 1652, the number of households in the congregation was fifty-​six, of which thirty were Scottish and the rest German and Polish. Interestingly, there were three Scottish elders, one Pole, and one German; and two Scottish deacons, one Pole, and one German deacon. A collection from the same year lists twenty-​two Scots, fifteen Germans, and two Polish burghers contributing to the needs of the church, probably reflecting the ethnic makeup of the congregation. After the 1633 tumult, the Lublin congregation began to decline, but until the “Deluge,” it remained the size of the Cracow congregation.39 No matter the ethnic makeup of the Lublin congregation, it soon discovered it had to rely on noble help. The first anti-​Calvinist tumult occurred in 1611. In 1614, the church building was destroyed—​Chrząstowski suggested it was caused by the minister Grzybowski’s virulent anti-​Catholic sermons. Since 37 38 39

asr iii, 113; Kossowski, Protestantyzm, 32–​48. Cztery Broszury, 242. buw ser 1175, fol. 8; Bajer, Scots, 265–​269.

238 

Chapter 10

the claim was never denied, it was probably accurate.40 In 1627, another tumult developed into an all-​out battle between Calvinist private armies defending the church and Jesuit students storming it. Following the destruction of the city’s church and the stiff penalties handed down on the Protestants by the Lublin Tribunal, none of the nobles were eager to risk housing worship services. These were moved to the residences of two noblewomen: Duchess Marianna Zasławska and her niece, Barbara Słupecka. It is not clear whether the women had more courage than the men or that the congregation shrewdly calculated that an assault on a female noble house carried a greater penalty under the law. The Catholic step-​son of the duchess intervened with the king and, on June 30, 1630, Zygmunt iii Waza wrote a letter to the city council, where under the pretext of preventing further tumults ordered them to forbid burghers from attending “heretical” worship and to expel Calvinist ministers from the city:  “Therefore we sternly order Your Faithfulnesses, necessarily desiring it, that you would not allow such public gatherings and congregations in places under Your Faithfulness’ jurisdiction, and to order all ministers to leave Lublin, not allowing them any public such services.”41 With such an attitude towards Protestant worship, the days of the Lublin Reformed Church were numbered and the 1633 tumult ended its existence within city walls. Reformed burghers continued to live in Lublin for the next 200 years, but Calvinist church services were moved to the private noble town of Bełżyce. The 1633 tumult caused many of the Protestant burghers to leave the town. Similar to the decline in the Cracow congregation after the 1591 tumult, the Lublin congregation fell into disarray in the 1640s and 1650s. The district synod tried to keep the Lutherans and Calvinists together as one congregation, but in 1650, the Lutherans separated, called their own pastor, and began construction of their own church in the private noble town of Piaski Luterskie. The now-​weakened Lublin Reformed congregation continued to worship in Bełżyce. While Lutheran services resumed in Lublin in 1783, Calvinist services resumed only in 1852.42 The examples of the Reformation in royal cities in the Crown show both the potential and the limits of Calvinism’s impact on the burghers there. Without the convenience of religious compulsion or exclusivity, the Reformed had to rely on the strength of their message, as well as on noble patronage and defense. In the early stages, the Reformation did attract a larger folk following: in 40 Szczucki, Jan Grzybowski, PSB, 106. 41 Kossowski, Protestantyzm, 162. 42 Ibid., 128; H.  Gmiterek, “Tumult wyznaniowy w Lublinie w 1633 roku,” OiRwP 50 (2006): 157–​167.

Calvinists in Royal Towns

239

Cracow, almost ten percent of the city’s population was Protestant, with similar percentages found in Lublin and (possibly) Poznań—​the numbers for smaller towns are impossible to ascertain. For a religion that had to contend with the established church, this was not a total failure. But when the Catholic Reformation became resurgent, prohibitions on Protestant burghers expanded, and their numbers, just like those of Reformed nobles, began to shrink. While greatly diminished in size, and in some cases (Lublin, Poznań) more reliant on immigrants from Reformed countries, burgher Reformation nonetheless showed remarkable resilience up until the 1650s. The fact that its successes and failures mirror so closely those of the Calvinist nobility demonstrates clearly how close these two had become by the seventeenth century despite great legal and class differences.

­c hapter 11

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters The Calvinist Reformation in the rich and powerful cities of Royal Prussia had a different trajectory than in the rest of the Commonwealth. Historians have noticed similarities to the Second Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire.1 In this chapter, I sketch the efforts the Calvinists used to take possession of and dominate the Lutheran Royal Prussian cities in the 1590s and early 1600s, which ended with moderate success only in Gdańsk. I will also offer a look at a lesser-​known case where they succeeded: the town of Krokowa, northwest of Gdańsk. Following the short-​lived Lutheran ascendancy in Gdańsk in 1525–​1526, the Lutheran sympathizers in Royal Prussia pursued a different tactic. Instead of openly challenging the Roman Catholic Church, the city elites and burghers worked creatively within the religious and legal status quo. Mass in Latin, communion in one kind, Catholic feasts, and elaborate vestments were retained, and the towns and churches remained officially and outwardly Roman Catholic. It was the content of the sermons that changed. Shortly after King Zygmunt I left Gdańsk, the Lutheran Franciscan Alexander Svenichen (d. 1529) returned to the city’s main church of St. Mary’s and resumed preaching. His successor was Pankarcy Klemme (c. 1475–​1546), a fiery preacher, who officially left the Dominican order in 1537 and visited Luther in Wittenberg in 1539. Despite objections from the Catholic hierarchy and thanks to the city council’s support, the Klemme remained at his post until his death. He is credited with transforming the city to a Lutheran core with an outward appearance of Roman Catholicism. In Toruń, Bartłomiej Jörich, officially a Franciscan friar, and Jakub Schwoger preached Lutheran doctrines for years from the city’s two main churches—​in both Polish and German. Here, too, outward Catholic rites and vestments were retained—​the only visible sign of Lutheran sympathies of the faithful was the public singing of hymns before mass.2 1 M. G. Müller, Zweite Reformation und städtische Autonomie im Königlichen Preußen. Danzig, Elbing und Thorn in der Epoche der Konfessionalisierung (1557–​1660) (Berlin:  1997), 77–​111. More on this province:  K. Friedrich, The Other Prussia. Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569–​1772 (Cambridge 2000). 2 T. Glemma, Stosunki kościelne w Toruniu w stuleciu XVI i XVII na tle dziejów kościelnych Prus Królewskich (Toruń:  1934), 36–​50; Z.  Nowak, Pankracy Klemme (ok.1475–​1546), PSB, vol. 12 (1966–​67); S.  Kościelak, “Wolność wyznaniowa w Gdańsku w XVI-​XVII wieku,” in Protestantyzm i Protestanci na Pomorzu (Gdańsk-​ Koszalin:  1997), 95–​ 101; J.  Małłek,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_012

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

241

This dualism had a number of implications for church life. Firstly, the royal privileges of Zygmunt ii August legalizing Lutheranism in those cities came relatively late on the European scale: 1557 for Gdańsk and 1558 for Toruń, Elbląg, and Malbork, while other towns in Royal Prussia secured similar privileges up to 1570. These royal charters referred only to the Augsburg Confession. This meant that the Royal Prussian cities had some flexibility in addressing the theological infighting within the Lutheran camp and the growing opposition to Calvinism. This was particularly important, as the Polish nobles embraced Calvinism rather than Lutheranism. Secondly, by the time Lutheranism was officially legalized, some of the crypto-​Lutheran patricians had already began to send their sons to Calvinist universities in Germany or Switzerland, making way for the introduction of Calvinism in the next generation. Thirdly, even after Lutheranism and communion in both kinds were legalized, the liturgical changes were slow and modest: the main Sunday service was still called ‘mass,’ choir hymns continued to be sung in Latin, individual confession was retained, and Lutheran clergy continued to wear Catholic chasubles and vestments. Finally, and quite importantly, initially none of the three big cities—​Gdańsk, Toruń, or Elbląg—​ordained its own ministers. What was first a precautionary measure to evade having their Lutheran priests examined by the local Catholic bishops now proved even further advantageous, as the city could select its preachers from candidates ordained elsewhere, and thus avoid hiring overly strict Lutherans.3 All of these factors were initially advantageous to the Reformed. Although neither of the large Royal Prussian cities ratified or signed on to the Sandomir Consensus, by the mid-​1570s and 1580s, they became its de facto defenders. During this time, the Royal Prussia city councils came slowly under the sway of Calvinism, and the cities began to work more closely with the then-​emergent Protestant political party in the Commonwealth. Arguably the best-​known case of Second Reformation in Royal Prussia is that of Gdańsk. The city received King’s Zygmunt ii’s oral permission to celebrate communion in both kinds in January 1557. It was confirmed in writing

“Reformacja i Protestantyzm w Toruniu w latach 1521–​1817,” in Reformacja w Toruniu. Wpływ kultury ewangelickiej na rozwój miasta. Katalog wystawy w Muzeum Okręgowym w Toruniu. (Toruń: 2017), 15–​20. 3 Glemma, Stosunki, 68–​75; M. G. Müller, “Między niemieckim konfesjonalizmem a polską tolerancją. Konflikty wyznaniowe między luteranami a ewangelikami reformowanymi w Gdańsku w drugiej połowie XVI wieku,” in Gdańsk protestancki w epoce nowożytnej. W 500-​lecie wystąpienia Marcina Lutra, vol. 1, Gdańsk 2017, 93–​95; M. Pawlak, Reformacja i kontrreformacja w Elblągu w XVI i XVII wieku, (Bydgoszcz: 1994), 52–​54.

242 

Chapter 11

on July 4th and extended by allowing the city’s clergy to preach based on the Augsburg Confession on December 22, 1557. This was reaffirmed in 1558 and those dates mark the official beginning of Gdańsk as a Lutheran city. The Catholics retained three minor churches within the city walls and the right to use the high altar at the main church of St. Mary until 1573, when it too was handed over to the Lutherans. Now predominantly and officially Lutheran, the city controlled ten territorial parishes and three chapels attached to hospitals within the city walls as well as twenty-​three congregations in the city’s rural properties. The liturgical changes were very modest, in part so as not to violate the royal privileges: sermons and hymns were in German or Polish but the liturgy was primarily in Latin, pastors wore old Catholic vestments and chasubles, and most of the feast days were retained, as was individual confession before ­communion.4 Almost as soon as Gdańsk became Lutheran, the preachers became embroiled in a controversy between sympathizers of Philip Melanchthon and orthodox Lutherans, who opposed any theological compromises with the Reformed. In 1560, Gdańsk’s city council fired three preachers who insisted ministers could and should admonish city councillors for their alleged lack of Lutheran orthodoxy. When their successors had to be fired for the same reason in 1561, the annoyed city council issued the Notula Concordiae in 1562. Drafted by Jacob van Barthen, a lawyer and not a theologian, it was short, succinct, and theologically moderate. While officially rejecting Calvinist and Catholic interpretations of communion, it reiterated the more moderate Philippist stance. More to the point, the Notula forbade the city’s clergy to discuss or question the Confessio Augustana or its interpretation by the Notula itself, and prohibited polemics with fellow preachers. All ministers had to subscribe to the Notula personally with their signature, and were threatened with immediate removal and expulsion for its violation. Despite objections from orthodox Lutherans, the Gdańsk city council obtained the Notula’s approval from the University of Wittenberg (which was not surprising, given its then Philippist leanings), and considered the matter closed. In 1567, Gdańsk created its own Geistliche Ministerium to supervise church affairs. It consisted of twenty-​five to thirty-​five members, all clergy, chaired by a Senior Ministerii, usually the main preacher at St. Mary’s Church. This body was to examine candidates for the city’s churches and adjudicate any clerical conflicts. However, all its decisions had to be ratified by the city’s three orders.

4 E. Kizik, “Prawo i administracja kościoła luterańskiego w Gdańsku i na terytorium wiejskim miasta w XVI-​XVIII wieku,” in Gdańsk Protestancki, 111–​124; Glemma, Stosunki, 66–​68.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

243

The ministers in the Gdańsk’s rural properties were subject professionally and legally to the city council, and not the Ministerium. For them, that body had purely academic and theological importance.5 The tight legal control imposed on the Gdańsk Lutheran Church by the city council, as well as the theological broad boundaries set by the Notula, worked well for over two decades. At the same time, the political and confessional context changed. Gdańsk, like Elbląg and Toruń, initially avoided the Sandomir Consensus, but after the war with King Batory and accepting that Calvinism was the most popular persuasion of the Commonwealth’s Protestants, it began to align itself politically with them. At the same time, the city’s ruling elite shifted towards Calvinism, spurred by studies at Reformed universities and exposure to Reformed theology. This occurred in contrast to the rising tide of Orthodox Lutheranism in Germany. In 1575, the same year that Melanchthon’s supporters were expelled from Saxony, Gdańsk’s city council decided that the Corpus Doctrinae Melanchthonis would become officially binding on the city’s ministers. In 1577, Gdańsk’s city councilors rejected the Formula Concordiae and ordered the city’s Ministerium to begin ordaining ministers—​until then, ordinations had occurred in other Lutheran bodies abroad. To underline their theological stance, the city council hired Peter Praetorius (1528–​1588), who had just been expelled for his crypto-​Calvinism from Torgau in Saxony, as the main preacher at St. Mary’s.6 The 1570s mark the beginning of Reformed ascendancy in Gdańsk. In 1570, the city allowed Dutch Calvinist refugees to establish their own congregation and worship within city walls. Though separate from the city’s parish system, their services attracted interest from the city’s burghers. In 1577, Gdańsk saw the arrival of Scottish mercenaries, and the increasingly pro-​Calvinist city council allowed them to worship in the church of St. Peter and Paul, marking that church’s debut as the center of the Gdańsk’s Calvinism. After the mercenaries left, Scottish Presbyterian merchants continued to settle in the city and made St. Peter and Paul’s their church in Gdańsk.7 In 1580, the city council hired Jacob Fabritius (1551–​1628) as the pastor of the Holy Trinity Church and the rector of the Gdańsk Gymnasium. A Gdańsk native, he was a graduate of Heidelberg, Basel, and Geneva, illustrating clearly the academic and theological paths the new generation was taking. Fabritius soon became the leader of the city’s Calvinists. With the sympathetic Praetorius chairing the Ministerium, and the help of another Calvinist, the gifted 5 Kizik, “Prawo i administracja,” 118–​120.; Müller, “Między niemieckim,” 93–​99. 6 Ibid., 98; Kościelak, “Wolność wyznaniowa,” 99–​102. 7 Bajer, Scots, 235–​246.

244 

Chapter 11

Gymnasium professor Bartłomiej Keckermann (1572–​1609), Fabritius began to quietly reshape Gdańsk’s confessional identity.8 Liturgical changes came first. The Calvinist-​leaning ministers began to abandon Catholic vestments in worship, wearing only academic gowns; they also introduced the Geneva Psalms in worship. The use of German and Polish in the liturgy expanded, and that of Latin was systematically purged. In 1585, Fabritius and other Calvinist ministers received permission from the city council (and tellingly not the Ministerium) to proceed “at their own risk”9 (proprio suo periculo) with further liturgical changes:  Fabritius and the pastors at St. Peter and Paul were allowed to introduce the practice of breaking bread in holy communion, abandon vestments and candles in worship, and abolish individual confession, as well as remove images and statues. Indeed, in 1589, images were removed from St. Peter and Paul’s church and a little later from St. Elizabeth’s church. Together with the Gdańsk Gymnasium, the city council began to move more decidedly toward the Reformed camp. By the end of the century, Calvinist ministers held half of the pastor posts at St. Mary’s, two out of three at St. Katherine’s, and all at St. Bartholomew’s, St. Elizabeth’s, and St. Peter and Paul’s. The Lutherans held on to a slim majority at St. John’s and Holy Trinity, as well as at St. Katherine’s. By the 1590s, there were de facto two separate Protestant churches within Gdańsk.10 The Lutherans would not go down without a fight, however. In 1585, under the guidance of the city’s major, Konstanty Ferber (d. 1588), they responded with a surprising move by inviting the Jesuits to the city to help fight the Calvinists. In 1586, the city council fired the contentious Praetorius from St. Mary’s and from chairing the Ministerium. That same year, the slim Lutheran majority in the Ministerium decided to discontinue ordinations in Gdańsk, fearing the young clergy would all move to Calvinism. This only solidified the theological camps: the Reformed turned to the Kujawy Calvinists for ordinations, while the Lutherans were now guaranteed that candidates ordained in Stolp in Western Pomerania or Königsberg in Ducal Prussia would have impeccably orthodox Lutheran credentials. Reformed liturgical changes did not go unchallenged: the removal of images from St. Peter and Paul’s church in 1589 caused a riot, and Lutheran burghers 8

9 10

Kościelak, “Wolność wyznaniowa,” 102–​106; L.  Mokrzecki, “Szkic z dziejów Gdańskiego Gimnazjum Akademickiego,” Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 2 (2008):  7–​17; B.  Nadolski, Bartłomiej Keckermann (1572–​1609), PSB, vol. 12 (1966/​1967), 322–​323; E. Pritzel, Geschichte der Reformierten Gemeinde zu S Petri-​Pauli in Danzig: 1570–​1940 (Danzig: 1940), 8–​14, 59–​60. Müller, “Między niemieckim,” 100. Ibid., 99–​101; Pritzel, Geschichte, 14–​20.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

245

defended the statues and images of the Virgin Mary. The church elders backed the Calvinist clergy, and they were not brought back. In early 1590, Fabritius attempted to cover the elaborate high altar at the Holy Trinity church, a first step before removing it altogether. Enticed by their Lutheran preachers, a mob stormed the church and tore down the sheets. On another occasion, Fabritius had to flee dressed in women’s clothing from an angry Lutheran mob. There was less opposition to the abandonment of individual confession and the old Catholic vestments, but these were meager gains in the face of mounting Lutheran opposition. The Gdańsk city council responded by ordering all city ministers to re-​ subscribe to the Notula, but both the Lutheran and Calvinist clerics added their own reservations, rendering the Notula effectively dead. In 1595, Gdańsk signed on to the conclusions of the Toruń General Synod as a city that was officially Reformed. This was the high point of Calvinist influence in Gdańsk. At this time, the ratio of Calvinists to Lutherans in the city council was ten to eight, and the latter held a majority only in the Third Order.11 Calvinist dominance proved short-​lived. Beginning in the mid-​1590s, King Zygmunt iii began an aggressive policy of attempting to force the cities in Royal Prussia to concede more rights to the Catholics on the one hand, and to stem the rising tide of Calvinism on the other. At the same time, Gdańsk’s Third Order embarked on a legal campaign to have the city council’s Calvinist stance reversed, and waited for the right moment to strike. It came in 1603 with the events in the town of Malbork. The pro-​Calvinist town council there wanted to formally legalize Calvinism and settled the openly Reformed minister Tobias Ruelius (d. 1621)  as the town’s main pastor. The burghers balked and forced Malbork’s town councilors to summon royal commissioners to adjudicate the matter. The royal commissioners naturally sided with the burghers, allowing only Lutheranism to be practiced in town, and dismissed Ruelius. Gdańsk hired him as a preacher in its rural congregation of Orunia, but this was a Pyrrhic victory for the Reformed. That same year, a petition signed by over 100 burghers and delegates of fifteen city guilds from Gdańsk demanded that Calvinism be banned from Gdańsk and its Lutheran worship restored. When the city council refused, they sued the city council in royal court (1605). Zygmunt iii sent Jan Łaski’s son, Samuel (c. 1553–​1611), to adjudicate between the parties. Both parties reached a compromise: the city council promised to reach an agreement with the Third

11

Kizik, “Prawo i administracja,” 118–​119; Kościelak, “Wolność wyznaniowa,” 68–​70; Müller, “Między niemieckim,” 100–​102.

246 

Chapter 11

Order and gave the king “a gift” of 50,000 guilders to leave them be. The monarch issued a preliminary injunction, forbidding anyone to incite any religious controversies until he settled the matter permanently.12 In 1612, the king finally issued his judgment:  Calvinists were barred from sitting on the city council but not from public worship within Gdańsk. The ecclesiastical affairs were settled with the status quo, but the tide had turned against the Reformed. By the 1620s, the Lutherans regained full control of the Ministerium, and began to vet candidates carefully, to ensure that only orthodox Lutherans were hired for vacant posts. In 1629, after the death of Fabritius, the Ministerium resumed ordaining ministerial candidates for Gdańsk, allowing only orthodox Lutherans. Fabritius’ successor as the primary preacher at Holy Trinity and rector of the gymnasium, Johannes Botssackus (d. 1674), was a staunch Lutheran who fought tirelessly to have Calvinists banned from Gdańsk. His preaching and writings were met with fiery replies by Jerzy Pauli (1586-​1650), the second pastor at Holy Trinity, who became the leader of the Calvinists and a worthy opponent both in the pulpit and via the printing press. There were few bright spots between 1612 and 1650 for the Reformed in Gdańsk. After earlier (1589) and futile attempts, the elders of St. Peter and Paul’s in 1626 called their first Polish-​language preacher, Wojciech Niclassus (1593–​1651), hoping to reach out to the Polish-​speaking Protestant population of Gdańsk. Niclassus was minister of the Greater Poland Brethren and conveniently, was already ordained, allowing the Reformed to bypass the Lutheran Ministerium. Having a Polish preacher at St. Peter and Paul’s served the Polish-​ speaking population of the city, who until then had had only Lutherans at St. Anne’s and Holy Trinity preaching in Polish, as well as the scores of Calvinist nobles visiting Gdańsk. Reformed services in Polish at St. Peter and Paul’s continued until 1707.13 Pauli and the Gdańsk’s Reformed elite were fighting a losing battle. After his death in 1650, the Calvinists lost the post at Holy Trinity church too. Having been removed from other churches in the city’s rural estates—​and all but two of Gdańsk’s churches—​this latest pulpit loss was a wake up call for the Calvinists. The Gdańsk Reformed secured the backing of the Dutch Estates General, as well as Polish Reformed noble allies, to fight for their position in 12 13

Ibid., 101–​102; Kizik, “Prawo i administracja,” 119; Kościelak, “Wolność wyznaniowa,” 106. app abc 746, 747, 1146, 2477; asr iv; W.  Faber, Die polnische Sprache im Danziger Schul-​und Kirchenwesen von der Reformation bis zum Weltkrieg (Danzig: 1930), 103–​105; L. Mokrzecki, Jerzy Pauli (1586–​1650), vol. 25 (1980), 344; Müller, “Między niemieckim,” 100–​ 102; Kościelak, “Wolność wyznaniowa,” 109–​ 110; Pritzel, Geschichte, 23–​26, W. Sobieski, “Zabiegi Gdańszczan o polskiego kaznodzieję,” RwP 2 (1922): 296.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

247

the city. The long conflict came to an end on April 17, 1652, when King Jan ii Kazimierz Waza confirmed the right of the Reformed to two churches within Gdańsk’s city walls: St. Elizabeth’s and St. Peter and Paul’s. Reformed burghers also received full civic and political equality with the Lutherans. But the king’s charter also confirmed the fact that they were now a minority. The Calvinists continued to hold a majority in the city council until the late seventeenth century, but their numbers look more modest among the total population. Historians estimate that they were 7.5% of Gdańsk’s population to the Lutherans’ 86.1% and the Catholics’ 6.4% around the year 1630. By 1700, their number had shrunk to 6.1%, compared with 84% for Lutherans and 9.5% for Roman Catholics, and the numbers continued to shrink throuought the eighteenth century. Due to their elite status, they continued to exert an immense influence on the city’s Protestant culture until the annexation by Prussia in 1792. After the closure of St. Elizabeth’s in 1820, St. Peter and Paul’s remained Gdańsk’s only Reformed congregation until 1945.14 The Second Reformation took a similar trajectory in Toruń. There, too, the 1580s have been generally accepted as the beginning of Calvinism. The terms of the vocation of Simon Musaeus (1521–​1576) from 1567 are already indicative of some Reformed influence. Musaeus had been earlier expelled from Bremen for his attacks from the pulpit on the Reformed. The Toruń city council made it plain that he was to follow the Augsburg Confession and its Apologia and to refrain from attacks on other clergy, and he was barred from introducing any changes to the city’s liturgical order (its conservatism might have surprised him). There followed a curious clause about church discipline: “he will endeavour to adhere to church discipline, of publicly rebuking public vices, with no zealotry and after a [private-​K.B.] rebuke, and the obdurate with the knowledge of the city council, will be barred until their repentance from the enjoyment of the sacraments and church fellowship.”15 This understanding of church discipline is quite Reformed, perhaps indicating Calvinist influence already at work in Toruń. Ironically, the anti-​Calvinist Musaues was soon accused of being a crypto-​ Calvinist by another ultra-​Lutheran preacher, Franz Burchardi (himself fired in 1560 from Gdańsk). The polemic between the two pastors became so heated that the city council dismissed both of them in 1570. Like Gdańsk, Toruń preferred the alumni of Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Strasbourg for her preachers 14

J. Baszanowski, “Statystyka wyznań a zagadnienia etniczne Gdańska w XVII i XVIII wieku,” Zapiski Historyczne 54 (1989):  57–​63; Kościelak, “Wolność wyznaniowa,” 109–​ 117; Pritzel, Geschichte, 27–​37. 15 Glemma, Stosunki, 94.

248 

Chapter 11

and teachers at the gymnasium, which guaranteed moderate Lutherans in the fashion of Phillip Melanchthon, but which also opened the door for Calvinism to seep in.16 Calvinism in Toruń received its biggest boost with the political career of city councilor and mayor Henryk Stroband (1548–​1609). A man of great knowledge, vision, and personal piety, he was born into the city’s ruling elite. Thoroughly educated in Tubingen, Wittenberg, Strasbourg, and Basel, Stroband returned to Toruń in 1574 and began his political career. Under his guidance, the city’s gymnasium was reorganized based on the model he had seen in Strasbourg (1582). His work coincided with the arrival of two ministers with clear Reformed sympathies:  Jan Girk (d. 1605)  and Marcin Trisner (d. 1623). Girk, an ordained Czech Brethren minister and graduate of Wittenberg and Basel, served as the professor at the Toruń Gymnasium, and the school began a shift to the Reformed camp. Arriving in 1577, Trisner publicly stated that if the city council ordered him to replace the host with bread at communion, he would not refuse. The city council chose to proceed more cautiously, but it was his preaching that built up a sizable Reformed following in what had been, until then, a predominantly Lutheran town.17 In 1586, the Toruń city council allowed Reformed services to be held in the main city church of St. Mary’s and called the first Reformed pastor, Piotr Artomiusz (1552–​1609). Artomiusz subscribed to the Sandomir Consensus and had served previously in Warsaw (Chapter 10). Prior to coming to Toruń, he pastored the Reformed congregation in Kryłów in Lesser Poland. His theological versatility made him the perfect candidate for the city councilors. Thanks to his leadership, Toruń hosted the 1595 General Synod—​the last attempt to keep the orthodox Lutherans as signatories to the Sandomir Consensus.18 By the early 1600s, the combined effects of Stobrand, the Reformed staff of the gymnasium, and the preaching by Artomiusz and Trisner, led the church in Toruń into the Reformed camp. In 1605, under Stobrand’s guidance, the city organized its ecclesiastical affairs. It called its first consistory, called Kirchenampt, making it responsible for the Lutheran church within the city and the city’s rural properties. The body consisted of the city’s mayor (Stobrand), two lay delegates from the city council, one representative of German-​speaking preachers, Artomiusz as the representative of the Polish-​speaking preachers, 16 Ibid., 93–​95; K. Maliszewski, “Stosunki religijne w Toruniu w latach 1548–​1660,” in ed. M. Biskup, Historia Torunia, vol. 2, (Toruń: 1994), 261–​265. 17 Dybaś, Henryk Strobrand, PSB, 328–​331. 18 Arndt, “Die reformierten,” 3–​5; M.  Sipayłło, Piotr Artomiusz (1552–​1609), PSB, vol. 1 (1935), 85–​86; Maliszewski, “Stosunki,” 264–​269; Glemma, Stosunki, 95.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

249

and Trisner as the church’s senior. It was charged with all ecclesiastical affairs, particularly those relating to finances and the hiring of clergy, and was an administrative and not a theological body. Questions regarding matters relating to doctrine, ordinations, and the church were handed over to another body, the Geistliche Ministerium. It consisted of seven ministers (five from the city and two from its two rural congregations) and had jurisdiction over all clergy within the city and its properties except for the theology professors at the gymnasium. The proceedings of the Geistliche Ministerium were chaired by a cleric titled “senior.” This was clearly based on the practice of the Greater Poland Brethren. Toruń’s senior served as the body’s representative in the Kirchenampt and at all civic and public events. While not classically Calvinist, the 1605 Toruń Church Order has clear Reformed influences, and at the moment of its establishment the Reformed held half of the seats in both bodies. Trisner, with his Calvinist leanings, became Toruń’s first senior.19 Another local peculiarity also worked in the Reformed favour. Despite the provision for it in the 1605 Church Order, Toruń did not ordain its own clergy till 1768. Instead, it relied on candidates ordained in Ducal Prussia, Brandenburg, and Silesia. As a result, there was an on-​going shortage of ministers who could preach in Polish, which was necessary in all but one (reserved for German only) of the city’s churches. No doubt swayed by their Calvinist sympathies, after Artomiusz’s death, in 1610 the city council called a minister of the Greater Poland Brethren, Jan Turnowski (1567–​1629) to replace him. A graduate of the universities of Geneva, Heidelberg, Strasbourg, and Zurich, he represented the new generation of Brethren preachers who pushed for closer union with the Reformed. Turnowski was settled as pastor at St. George’s Church, the Polish preacher at St. Mary’s, as well as pastor of the rural congregations of Grębocin and Górsko. He was also a professor at the Toruń Gymnasium.20 A decade later in 1620, another Brethren pastor and professor at the gymnasium, Paweł Orlicz (1599–​1649), joined him in Toruń, and three other Brethren ministers followed. Turnowski was chosen to be one of the main public defenders of Toruń after the anti-​Catholic 1612 riots. The Brethren understood the importance of these Toruń links, and all Brethren Toruń clergy serving at St. Mary’s attained the rank of seniors or konseniors. In 1623, Jan Turnowski

19 20

Arndt, “Die reformierten,” 6–​7; Glemma, Stosunki, 72–​73; H.  Krause, “Das Geistliche Ministerium in Torn,” Westpreussen Jahrbuch 39 (1989):  86–​90; Małłek, “Reformacja i Protestantyzm,” 28–​29. Arndt, “Die reformierten,” 5–​7.

250 

Chapter 11

became Toruń’s second senior and took charge of the city’s (officially) Lutheran church.21 The 1620s and 1630s mark the peak of Calvinist influence in Toruń:  they dominated the gymnasium staff, staffed the Polish preacher posts at St. Mary’s, St. Jacob’s, and St. George’s, and served as pastors in the villages of Grembocin (until 1652) and Górsko (until 1659). On top of that, Turnowski held the rank of the city’s senior. When he died, a nominal Lutheran, Peter Zimmermann, replaced him. Zimmermann was brought up by the Brethren in Ostroróg, and although he was ordained by the Lutheran consistory in Frankfurt an Oder, he was known to have Calvinist sympathies. A symbolic sign of that was the designation by the Włodawa Convocation of Toruń as one of the three places were general synods of the three Reformed Churches were to be held.22 However, as in Gdańsk, this Reformed ascendancy proved short-​lived. Their attempts at making the city’s Church more Calvinist had limited success. With time, just as in Gdańsk, the fact that Toruń did not ordain its own preachers worked to the Reformed disadvantage. No specific effort to prevent orthodox Lutheran clergy from being appointed to the city’s churches was made. From the late 1620s, orthodox Lutherans in the Ministerium worked slowly to rebuild their influence. After the 1640s, the Reformed lost their majority in the Geistliche Ministerium, which began to settle increasingly anti-​Reformed pastors to the city, the gymnasium, and the rural congregations. Zimmermann’s death in 1656 marked the end of Calvinist or crypto-​Calvinist control of the Ministerium. The orthodox Lutherans now elected one of their own as senior to lead that body. Whereas in Gdańsk it was liturgical and theological audacity that led to the Calvinists’ failure, in Toruń it was Reformed timidity. The Brethren ministers were hired by an officially Lutheran city and were ordered to keep the liturgy intact. Their attempts at liturgical reforms were timid and came too late. Turnowski did begin to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with bread in the Reformed fashion, with the tacit approval of the city council. However, when his successor Orlicz refused to wear old clerical vestments and tried to use a fully Calvinist liturgy, the city council balked. Orlicz was ordered to retain the old liturgy and gained only silent consent not to wear Catholic vestments. Even this accommodation did not go unnoticed by the Lutheran clergy in Toruń. 21

22

Ibid., 6–​21; J.  Dworzaczkowa, Paweł Orlicz (1599–​1649), PSB, 24, (1979), 197–​198; S.  Salomonowicz, “Kultura umysłowa Torunia w dobie renesansu, reformacji i wczesnego baroku,” in ed. M. Biskup, Historia Torunia, vol. 2 part ii (Toruń: 1994), 192–​200; Maliszewski, “Stosunki,” 264–​267; Małłek, “Reformacja i Protestantyzm,” 25–​27. Arndt, “Die reformierten,” 6–​21.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

251

His successor, Johann Kiettlin (d. 1656), had to swear before both the staunchly Lutheran Ministerium and the still-​Reformed-​leaning city council that he would not introduce any “new things” into his preaching or liturgy before being confirmed as a pastor. The lasting liturgical influence of the Brethren was the abandonment by most burghers, Lutherans and Calvinists alike, of individual confession by the mid-​seventeenth century. The Colloquium Charitativum in 1642 was the swan song of irenic Lutheranism and Calvinism in Toruń. The Reformed were rapidly losing influence to the Lutherans. By the 1660s, they held on to the posts of Polish preacher at St. Mary’s and the pastor at St. George’s, both posts filled by the same pastor—​a radical change from only three decades before, when they constituted nearly half of the clergy in Toruń. In 1675, after the death of the Brethren senior and Polish preacher at St. Mary’s, Jan Sereniusz Chodowiecki (1610–​1675), none of his Lutheran colleagues would preach at his funeral. To avoid a public scandal, Jan Neuenachbar, Toruń’s senior, agreed to preach, but only with great reluctance. The Ministerium and city council then nominated orthodox Lutherans to fill the two vacant posts. They also forbade the Reformed from holding services in any of the city’s churches or within the city walls. The Reformed congregation ignored the ban and called their own pastor, but he was a minister to his flock only. By the end of the seventeenth century, the Reformed in Toruń had shrunk to around 150 people out of about 8,000 burghers. A small Reformed congregation survived till 1945.23 The Reformed had the least influence in the third great Royal Prussian city of Elbląg. Here, too, post-​1525, the city council proceeded to carefully maintain an outward Roman Catholic veneer while calling preachers with Lutheran theology. In 1535, it hired Willem van der Voldergraft (1493–​1568), also known as Wilhelm Gnapheus, as the rector of the city’s gymnasium. The result was a gymnasium with a firmly Lutheran character. Elbląg lay within the diocese of Warmia with its fiercely anti-​Protestant bishop Stanisław Hosius and had to proceed more cautiously than Gdańsk or Toruń. Elbląg received the royal privilege to celebrate holy communion in both kinds on July 4th, 1557, and on December 22, 1557, the freedom to profess and teach according to the Augsburg Confession for the period of one year. These privileges were reaffirmed indefinitely on April 4, 1567. However, unlike in other large Prussian cities, Elbląg was allowed to practice Lutheranism only within the bounds of St. Mary’s parish. All other churches were to remain Catholic.24 23 24

Ibid., 12–​22; Glemma, Stosunki, 95–​96; S. Salomonowicz, “Dzieje wyznań i życia religijnego,” in ed. M. Biskup, Historia Torunia, vol. 2 part iii, (Toruń: 1996), 395–​399. S. Tync, Wilhelm Gnapheus (zm. 1568), PSB, vol.8 (1959/​1960), 137.

252 

Chapter 11

The city council ignored this, and by 1563 they had taken control of all the churches within city walls. In 1567, Bishop Hosius regained the church of St. Nicholas, which he handed over to the Jesuits. In 1573, Elbląg expelled the order and took possession of the church, but the bishops of Warmia sued the city in royal court and, naturally, won. The bitter legal conflict lasted for over 40 years until the 1615 Sejm condemned Elbląg for its seizure of the church. The parties reached a settlement on April 14, 1616: St. Nicholas was returned to the Catholics, and the Lutherans retained the other churches within city walls.25 Faced with a long and protracted legal battle, the Elbląg city council kept very tight control over ecclesiastical affairs. Even after Elbląg became Lutheran, the liturgy remained virtually unchanged until 1772 when Prussia annexed the city. Most prayers were sung in Latin, priests wore Catholic vestments, and individual confession was retained till the end of the eighteenth century. The vernacular (German or Polish) was used only for congregational hymns, some prayers, and the sermon. Until the 1830s, Elbląg retained the custom of serving communion kneeling, with figures of two angels on each side of the railing holding a tablecloth for the communicants. Elbląg’s liturgy was so old-​ fashioned that King Gustav ii Adolf of Sweden, after having attended a Lutheran service, asked the city mayors which religion was practiced there. The same conservatism followed in ecclesiastical affairs. No Church consistory was formed. The mayor, together with a councillor assigned to each of the churches, governed the churches within the city—​they were called “church fathers” (Kirchenväter). The churches in the city’s rural estates were governed by a separate group of three councillors. By the mid-​seventeenth century the council supervised five congregations within Elbląg and ten in rural estates. The main Lutheran church in Elbląg (St. Mary’s) had three pastors, all other churches were each served by a single pastor. The main preacher at St. Mary’s held the title of “Primus” or later “senior,” but it was purely honorary, and it gave him no power over the city’s fellow clergymen. He appointed two pastors to examine any candidate for the ministry, but these were formally called by the city council. Unlike Gdańsk or Toruń, the clergy in Elbląg never had their own, separate body, and were individually responsible to the city council. Until 1753, Elbląg did not ordain any ministers, choosing to send them to Gdańsk or Königsberg in Ducal Prussia for ordination.26 Calvinism did appear in Elbląg, but not with the same force as in Gdańsk or Toruń. In 1580, the English Eastland Company began its operations in the

25 Pawlak, Reformacja, 23–​43. 26 Ibid., 45–​66.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

253

Elbląg. Due to pressure from Gdańsk, King Batory did not give it a royal charter, but the city’s mayor legalized it in 1585. The contract was silent on religious matters and the English and Scottish merchants soon created two congregations, Anglican and Presbyterian. After the Polish Sejm suppressed the company in 1628, the Anglicans left, but the Presbyterian congregation continued until 1660 with ministers called from Scotland. By the mid-​seventeenth century, many Scottish families had intermarried with and joined Elbląg’s ruling elite; some retained their Reformed faith. Some of the city’s pastors were reputed to be crypto-​Calvinists, including Johann Bochmann, the city’s senior from 1572 to 1607, Jan Mylius (1557–​1630), the rector of the gymnasium from 1597, as well as Mylius’ two sons: Dawid (1594–​1629), rector of the Calvinist gymnasium in Bełżyce, and Michał (1603–​1652), who followed his father serving as the Elbląg Gymnasium’s rector. No separate Reformed congregation was formed until 1701 and its first pastor was not called until 1771.27 Transforming congregations from Lutheran to Reformed was more successful on the private estates of Royal Prussian nobility, but the results were mixed. By the end of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century a number of the local Lutheran noble families (Przebendowski, Krokowski, Czema) became Calvinist, and some turned over churches on their estates to Reformed preachers. Between 1600 and 1610, Fabian Czema (d. 1636), later castellan of Chełm and from a family of stalwart Lutherans, converted to Calvinism. No doubt under the influence of his wife, Katarzyna Leszczyńska (d. c. 1625), he installed on his estate of Jordanki a preacher from the Czech Brethren. There are no reports of Lutherans opposing the new preacher, and it appears that by the middle of the sixteenth century, some of the faithful had become Reformed. In 1636, shortly before his death, Czema installed another Brethren minister on his other estate of Jasna (Lichtenfeld). The pastor in question was Czech, but served as a German preacher. Lutheran ministry in Jasna continued uninterurrpted. Czema’s plans to settle a Polish preacher there never materialized. His only daughter, Anna (d. 1670), married the Lutheran Zygmunt Guldenstern (1598–​ 1666) and Czema guaranteed her in a prenuptial agreement the presence of a Reformed minister in Jordanki as her private chaplain. Under Guldenstern, the Lutheran services continued on both estates.28 27

28

E.G. Kerstan, Die evangelische Kirche des Stadt und Landkreises Elbing von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart (Elbing:  1917), 101–​104; Bajer, Scots, 248–​251; Pawlak, Reformacja, 75–​78; idem, Jan Mylius (1557–​1630), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 354–​355; S.  Tworek, David Mylius (1594–​1621), PSB, vol. 22 (1977), 353. P. Czaplewski, Fabian Czema (zm. 1636), PSB, vol. 4 (1938), 328–​329; M. Pelczar, Zygmunt Guldenstern (1598–​1666), PSB vol. 9 (1960/​1961), 141–​142.

254 

Chapter 11

The importance of the Czema patronage and of the Jordanki congregation was made evident by the fact that in 1649 the minister, Daniel Kopecki (d. 1657), was raised by the Brethren to the rank of “konsenior of Prussia congregations” by the Czech Brethren. During the “Deluge,” the Swedes burned down the church in Jordanki, but Anna and her son, Władysław Kazimierz Guldenstern (d. 1676), rebuilt the Reformed church in 1668. After his death, the Calvinist services ceased, as his Catholic heirs refused to pay the salary of a Reformed minister, and the congregation was too small, poor, or both to support him on their own. The Reformed church building was dismantled in 1717. In Jasna, where the Lutherans kept the church building, if any Reformed remained post-​ 1676, they dissolved into the Lutheran majority, and both villages were almost exclusively Protestant until 1945.29 The Second Reformation had the most success in Krokowa congregation on a rural estate northwest of Gdańsk. The local Krokowski (von Krockow) family converted to Calvinism when Reinhold Krokowski (1536–​1599) fought for King Henry iv during the French wars of religion. Krokowski was a man focused on his military career and he installed a Lutheran minister in Krokowa after the last (allegedly married) Catholic priest had died around 1567. This unnamed Lutheran served until his death in 1608. At this time, Jan Konrad Brzeźnicki (d. 1640), a Reformed with links to the Kujawy Calvinists, was appointed as pastor by the patron, Ernest i Krokowski (1575–​1631).30 Brzeźnicki refused to join the Brethren with his fellow Calvinist ministers in 1627 and served in Krokowa quietly and faithfully until his death. Only then did the new owner, Ernest ii Krokowski (d. 1681), settled a Brethren minister, Jan Musonius (1610–​1665), in Krokowa. The slow and cautious approach to religious change by the Krokowski family resulted in no known conflicts in the congregation. The Calvinist Brzeźnicki guaranteed the Lutherans regular monthly visits from a neighbouring Lutheran minister, a policy that was wisely continued by subsequent Brethren ministers.31 Krokowa became the not only the largest and most important congregation of the Brethren in Royal Prussia, but also one of the largest rural Brethren churches in Poland. In 1643, Musonius reported that on Easter Sunday there

29 30 31

app abc 740, 2509, 2510, 2511; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce, 105; Klemp, Protestantci, 53, 119–​123, 129, 209–​211, 219–​220. M. Sławoszewska, Ernest Krokowski (1575–​1631), PSB, vol. 15 (1970), 317–​318. It wrongly identifies him as a Lutheran. Dworzaczkowa, “Z dziejów,” 533–​539; Klemp, Protestanci, 220–​225; J. Włodarski, “Księga metrykalna zboru Braci Czeskich w Krokowej (1718–​1763) jako źródło historyczne,” Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 2 (2008): 88–​96.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

255

were over 400 communicants and that some had the habit of returning for a second service as well; by the end of the century that number was near 700. On Sundays, the minister preached twice in Polish and once in German and also offered a separate regular service in the castle chapel. The majority of the faithful were local Kashubians but Krokowa drew a large number of Calvinist nobles and burghers from areas farther away. The workload was so great that Musonius insisted that the Brethren send him young ministers to train and to assist him with pastoral duties. The congregation flourished, and Musonius’ successor, Jerzy Glening (d. 1673), became the second Prussian konsenior of the Brethren in 1657. Subsquently, all of his successors in Krokowa served in the role of “konsenior in Prussia” until 1732, when the title was discontinued.32 The thriving Krokowa congregation was thought to be an example that could be replicated elsewhere. In 1658, Ernest ii Krokowski wrote to the Brethren senior, Jan Bythner, suggesting that he and the Brethren move over the border to the principalities of Bytów and Lębork, which were then held by the elector of Brandenburg. He suggested they try to take over the Lutheran congregations there: “The conditions are good. The people are Polish, Kashubians. We could have a mighty colony. Close to [both] Germany and the motherland’s [Poland’s] border.”33 Bythner demurred, but the letter shows just how well-​run and promising the example of the Krokowa congregation was. Shortly before his death, Ernest ii Krokowski installed another Brethren minister in his village of Zwartowo (1677) in the principality of Lębork. While the number of Reformed nobles attending that church grew, the majority of the peasants remained Lutheran and were guaranteed regular visits by Lutheran clergy. The pastors also ministered to a small group of Reformed burghers in Lębork, who attended church holidays in Zwartowo. The Zwartowo Brethren congregation existed formally until 1777 when it was moved to Lębork, but it did not produce a lasting Reformed population in the village.34 For a short while, the Brethren also held another rural congregation, this time in the village of Charbrowo, in the land of Lębork. In 1660, the Calvinist Lorenz Christoph von Somnitz (1612–​1678) bought the ruined estate and rebuilt the burned-​down Lutheran church as Reformed, despite the fierce resistance from other co-​patrons. The new church edifice was consecrated in 1671 with Wojciech Majewski (d. 1690), a Brethren preacher from Gdańsk, installed 32

app abc 127, 734, 745; Dworzaczkowa, “Z dziejów,” 536–​538; Klemp, Protestanci, 220–​225. 33 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 177. 34 app abc 340, 1025, 1178, 1347, 2518, 2519; M.  Dzięcielski, Aktywność społeczno-​ polityczna szlachty pogranicza lęborskiego (Gdańsk: 2009), 295–​297.

256 

Chapter 11

as its pastor. The village Kashubians and surrounding nobility (all Lutherans) would not accept Reformed ministers. The Lutherans secured the right for their pastor to lead services in the church once every six weeks, but in 1691 called their own pastor full time. The Somnitz family would not budge, and the Charbrowo congregation remained in constant turmoil. By the 1700s, the Somnitz family allegedly attended church only once a year. This ongoing conflict prevented a successful establishment of a lasting Reformed congregation. In 1736, following the death of both their mother and the Reformed preacher in a space of few weeks, the fourth generation of the Somnitz family converted to Lutheranism and turned the Charbrowo church over to the Lutherans. In both Zwartowo and Charbrowo, the choice of Brethren ministers was made in part because they were able to preach in both German and Polish and, thus, reached the population of Kashubian peasants, as well as the noble burgher patrons.35 The final successful transformation of a rural Lutheran congregation into a Reformed congregation was at Mokry Dwór, near Gdańsk. In the mid-​1660s, the village became the property of Reformed patricians from Gdańsk who, in 1650, had introduced the first Reformed pastor, Gerhard Bottinger, who came from St. Elizabeth’s church in Gdańsk. Unlike the villages described above, this congregation was exclusively German-​speaking, which would explain why the links with the Czech Brethren were short-​lived: Brethren pastors served it only from 1657 until 1693. Its proximity to Gdańsk soon made it a de facto satellite congregation of Gdańsk’s St. Peter and Paul’s congregation, and several of its ministers found service there to be the foundation for an illustrious career elsewhere. Mokry Dwor had a Reformed congregation until 1815, when it merged with the neighbouring Lutheran parish.36 Despite promising beginnings, the Calvinists never succeeded in fully converting the Lutheran faithful in Royal Prussia. There is some irony in the fact that all their initial advantages, including the late, if official, recognition of the Reformation, its initial Philippist flavor, and the lack of an organized body to ordain pastors, all ultimately worked against them. With the supply of moderate Lutheran clerics shrinking, and no local ordinations, by the 1600s, the city

35 36

app abc 835; Dzięcielski, Aktywność, 298–​301; J. Kriegseisen, “Kartusze trumienne rodziny von Somnitz w Charbrowie. Przyczynek do nowożytnej kultury funeralnej,” Porta Aurea 7–​8 (2009): 111–​133.111–​112, 132. The most famous one being Piotr Figulus (1617–​1670), father of Daniel Ernest Jablonski, pastor here 1657–​1667 and Johann Reinhold Förster (1729–​1798) who sailed around the world with James Cook in 1772, and who pastored here 1753–​1765. Klemp, Protestanci, 223–​225.

Calvinist Fishing in Lutheran Waters

257

councils faced an increasingly hostile pool of Lutheran pastors who refused to be dominated by the Reformed. Moderate and discrete congregations such as Elbląg and Toruń exercised little influence. In Gdańsk, where the Reformed came out in the open in the 1600s, they secured a small but influential sector of the city’s population. In Toruń, where they tarried until the 1650s, it was too late, and they were shaken off by the Lutherans. The village of Krokowa is the only case where a previously Lutheran congregation was successfully transformed into a thriving Reformed congregation, one that survived even through the Prussian Church Union in 1817, and on until 1945.37 37

Ibid., 223–​225.

­c hapter 12

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”—​Women and Calvinism in the Commonwealth Women’s position within the Calvinist traditions of the Commonwealth has hardly been touched upon by previous studies. When women are featured, it is usually only to discuss cases in which they stayed faithful to Catholicism and converted their “heretical” husbands. A public deathbed profession of a woman’s Calvinist faith was taken, for example, by an historian to mean that she died a convinced Roman Catholic.1 Synodal and other sources, however, reveal a different picture of women’s attitude to their Reformed faith. Far from being indifferent, many were ardent followers. I will try to show that by the 1600s, women’s devotion and generosity to the Reformed Church sometimes outpaced that of men. This chapter should therefore serve to inspire more thorough research into the role of women in the spread and maintenance of Calvinism in the Commonwealth. Following her first encounter with the Czech Brethren in the spring of 1550, Katarzyna Ostroróg (d. 1583)  wrote to her friend:  “Until now, my dear Kąsinowska, having been looking with great labor for the treasure of eternal life, in vain we rummaged in sand, muck, mud, and clay. Now, by the unique grace of God, we have found and possess true gold. We now have true preachers of the Gospel and ministers of the sacraments, dauntless and not afraid. They do not bind us by an oath to silence that we take the whole sacrament [that is, in two kinds], but openly preach the truth and administer true communion.”2 The plural “we” referred probably to the other women in the Ostroróg family and household who embraced the Brethren’s faith. We know that Ostroróg and her sister Anna Jankowska were present at the second sermon preached by Jerzy Izrael on March 20, 1551. Anna and her husband then invited the Brethren to their private estate and, during the service on March 25, she, her husband, and Kąsinowska’s husband joined the Brethren. A few weeks later, Katarzyna joined the church, together with Kąsinowska. Later that year, they introduced Izrael to their sister-​in-​law, Barbara Stadnicka. It was thanks to

1 Kempa, Mikołaj Krzysztof, 28. 2 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 59.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_013

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”

259

his wife’s support of the Brethren that Jakub Ostroróg joined the church. Thus, women brought Calvinism to the Ostroróg family.3 The letter clearly testifies that it was not just the men of the Commonwealth who were searching for the Christian truth: both Katarzyna Ostroróg and Anna Kąsinowska had been secretly receiving communion in both kinds from the Catholic priest in Szamotuły. It is highly probable that that practice was not confined to them, but included other women as well. The owner of Szamotuły, Jan Świdwa-​Szamotulski (1522–​1566), was set against “heresy,” or at least against the Brethren; his wife, however, was their ardent supporter. In fact, his is perhaps the earliest case of religious difference within a family: the wife was a Protestant, and her husband was not. In 1556, the Brethren mentioned Elżbieta Świdwa-​Szamotulska (d. 1570): “what poverty she suffers with the Christian religion because of the lack of piety of her husband, who behaves against her in a most unfriendly way, prevents her in all possible ways from attending a true sermon and partaking of Christ’s ministries [holy communion in both kinds and services celebrated by the Brethren].”4 Elżbieta Świdwa-​Szamotulska not only persevered in her Protestantism, but also raised her son, Jan (d. 1580/​81), as a member of the Brethren. He was sent on an extended tour of Protestant academies in Heidelberg (1567) and Zurich (1568–​1569). Following his return, he and his mother turned the church in Szamotuły over to the Brethren (1569). He married Jakub Ostroróg’s daughter Katarzyna (d. c. 1589), and their two daughters supported the Brethren church in Szamotuły. The Brethren congregation there existed until 1615 when Szamotulski’s grandson, Andrzej Rokossowski, converted to Catholicism and turned the town’s church over to the Catholics.5 Sometimes the conversion of women happened under the influence of men. Krzysztof i Radziwiłł’s first wife, Anna Sobek (d. 1578), converted to Calvinism under his influence, and according to Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Orphan, “she was a fierce heretic.”6 The devout Krzysztof Zenowicz (c. 1540–​1614), palatine of Brześć Litewski, converted his wife Fedora Wołłowicz (c. 1540–​1625) from Eastern Orthodoxy to Calvinism. Fedora was easily swayed in religious matters: despite her husband’s pleas to stay true to the Reformed religion, shortly after his death and under the influence of her Jesuit son from her first marriage, she converted to Uniate Catholicism. Princess Zofia Radziwiłł (1577–​1614) 3 Ibid., 22–​24. 4 asr i, 101. 5 Ibid., 101; T. Jurek, Jan Świdwa Szamotulski (1 poł XVI w.—​1580/​1581), PSB, vol. 46 (2009/​2010), 571–​572. 6 Wisner, Krzysztof Radziwiłł (1585–​1640), PSB, 276–​283.

260 

Chapter 12

converted from Calvinism to Catholicism under the influence of her first husband, Jerzy Chodkiewicz (c. 1570–​1595). However, after his death she returned to her family, abjured Catholicism, and remained a Calvinist for the rest of her life. Finally, Małgorzata Ruchajewicz (d. 1640), the mother of the four Węgierski minister brothers—​Tomasz (1587–​1653), Jan (1591–​1636), Andrzej (1600–​ 1649), and Wojciech Jr. (1604–​1659)—​remained Catholic all through her married life to Wacław Węgierski (d. 1613). She converted only around 1617, as a widow, probably thanks to the influence of her sons.7 One of the most celebrated cases of a woman’s conversion to Calvinism was that of Elżbieta Szydłowiecka (1533–​1562), wife of Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black (1515–​1565). Hailing from one of the most influential families in the Crown, she married King Zygmunt ii August’s confidant and main patron of Calvinism in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The royal family attended her wedding, and she was often present at court. When the duchess died, Zygmunt ii August, his queen, and two of the king’s sisters attended her funeral in Vilnius, conducted by two Protestant ministers. The details of her death were so interesting that the Calvinist poet Cyprian Bazylik (c. 1535–​1600) composed a poem about her last days and sent the manuscript to the third royal sister, Sophia of Braunschweig (1522–​1575), herself a Lutheran. A  longer anonymous description of the duchess’ last days was also sent. Again, the interest surrounding her death shows just how important her faith and position were.8 Duchess Elżbieta Radziwiłł had converted of her own free will to Calvinism after a few years of marriage and soul-​searching. Apparently, there were rumors circulating about a forced conversion and her alleged secret Catholicism. The rumours were nourished by the fact that the young duchess liked to dance, as well as play cards and chess—​despite her ministers’ admonitions. Well aware of the gossip, she turned her dying (which lasted five days) into a spectacle of Reformed ars moriendi. After calling her children and blessing them, she admonished her daughters to read the Bible on their own and to avoid vainglory and dancing. She then kissed the children good-​bye and dismissed them. After that, in the presence of the full court, she addressed the rumors of regretting leaving Catholicism and dismissed them as “false slander.”9

7 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 113–​138; Seredyka, Księżniczka, passim; Urban, “Rola braci,” 47–​48. 8 M. Karpluk, J. Pirożyński, “O nieuwiarowaniu śmierci—​rękopiśmienna relacja świadka ostatnich dni Elżbiety z Szydłowieckich Radziwiłłowej (4–​20 VI 1562),” Miscellanea staropolskie 6 (1990): 82–​91. 9 Ibid., 85.

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”

261

She explained that she delayed her conversion out of respect for her mother and because she wanted to examine theological matters for herself. Elżbieta explained her lack of public criticism of “papists” as a woman’s humbleness, and the fact that she ate fish (apparently also on fasting days) as simply her preference for fish rather than meat. Having then said the Apostle’s Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, she led those gathered in singing Psalm 85 in Polish. Throughout her agony, Elżbieta Radziwiłł prayed, said the Creed, and sang psalms with her Protestant ministers daily. In the later days, she overcame her timidity and explicitly denied the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation.10 On her penultimate day, clearly bothered by the rumors of her alleged crypto-​ Catholicism, she denied them once again, “With these eyes also I see my Lord, to whom I  entrust my soul, because I  believe in him only, and abhor idols. Some have slandered me, [saying] that I want to return to idols [Catholicism], [but] they do me wrong by [saying] this. Preserve me my Lord God, in whom alone I believe and in whom I trust alone.”11 In the context of Duchess Elżbieta Radziwiłł’s faith, it is worth noting that, although all of her sons eventually converted to Roman Catholicism, her daughters followed a different path. The oldest daughter, Princess Elżbieta (1550–​1591), became a Unitarian like her father, allegedly moved towards Judaism, and ended her spiritual odyssey by converting to Roman Catholicism. After their parents’ deaths, the younger daughters were brought up at the Reformed court of Stanisław Myszkowski (d. 1570), palatine of Cracow. The youngest, Princess Krystyna Radziwiłł (1560–​1580), converted in 1578 to Catholicism under the influence of her husband, chancellor Jan Zamoyski. The middle twin daughters, Princesses Zofia (1553–​c. 1609) and Anna (1553–​1590), married Protestant noblemen and remained Calvinist all their lives—​the only two of the eight Radziwiłł children to do so.12 Princess Anna Radziwiłł (1553–​1590) not only kept her Reformed faith, but also passed it on to her daughter, Katarzyna Buczacka-​Tworowska (d. c. 1636). The latter maintained a church on her estate in Nowosiółki. After she died, the 1637 Lublin district synod asked her son Krzysztof Potocki (1600–​1676) to continue to provide for her pastor as his private chaplain “at the pious example of his late mother.”13 Her family must have been very religious indeed, 10 11

Ibid., 85–​91. Ibid., 90. Despite these numerous and unambiguous statements, Tomasz Kempa ruled that her embrace of Protestantism “was not fully sincere, and she remained in the depth of her soul a Catholic.” Kempa, Mikołaj Krzysztof, 28. 12 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 17. 13 boz 1183, fol. 19.

262 

Chapter 12

as both her sons were lifelong defenders of the Reformed Church, and the younger son Jan Teodoryk Potocki (1608–​1664) translated theological works into Polish.14 Calvinist women in the Commonwealth often stayed faithful to their Reformed religion longer than men. Jan Zbigniew Ossoliński (1555–​1623) from Lesser Poland converted to Roman Catholicism around 1592, following the death of his Calvinist first wife and his remarriage to an ardent Roman Catholic. After his conversion, Ossolinski’s diary becomes very discreet regarding any remaining Calvinist family connections. However, we know that his sister Jadwiga (d. 1605) kept her Reformed faith and was buried next to their mother in Goźlice. The fact that it was a Reformed church at the time is omitted from the diary.15 In fact, women sometimes kept the Reformed faith for generations after the men of their families had converted. In Greater Poland, following the death of Jan Rozdrażewski (d. 1600), castellan of Poznań, his widow Katarzyna Potulicka converted to Catholicism with her young children. However, their oldest daughter, Anna (c. 1586–​c. 1629), remained Calvinist. In 1603, she married a freshly minted Catholic convert from the Brethren, Wacław Leszczyński (d. 1628). After her marriage, Anna remained steadfast in her faith. Two of her sons were Roman Catholic bishops, and one even became the primate of Poland, but at least one daughter, Anna (1615–​1653), was brought up Calvinist. This Anna Leszczyńska married a Reformed nobleman from Lesser Poland, the abovementioned Jan Teodoryk Potocki, and some of her descendants through her granddaughter Anna Potocka-​Grużewska (d. c. 1726) remain Reformed to this day.16 In Lesser Poland, the women of the Słupecki family also remained committed to Calvinism longer than the men. Feliks Słupecki (c. 1571–​1616), castellan of Lublin, converted in 1615 to Roman Catholicism and turned the church in Opole Lubelskie over to the Catholics. His wife Barbara, née Leszczyńska (c. 1582–​1654), not only kept her Reformed faith, but also built a new Reformed church in town. She was the primary patroness of that congregation for the next thirty years, until it disbanded around 1647. She made sure that all of her daughters and younger sons were brought up Calvinist. Barbara Słupecka remained Calvinist even after the 1644 conversion to Catholicism of her 14 15 16

T. Wasilewski, Krzysztof Potocki (1600–​1675), PSB, vol. 28 (1984), 85–​88; Sipayłło, Jan Teodoryk Potocki, PSB, 28–​29. J. Z. Ossoliński, Pamiętnik ed. J. Długosz (Warszawa: 1983), 45; W. Czapliński, Jan Zbigniew Ossoliński (1555–​1623), vol. 24 (1979), 428–​431. Saar-​Kozłowska, “Pomnik,” 38–​42; Grużewski, Kościół, 230.

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”

263

youngest son, Jerzy Słupecki (c. 1615–​1663). Tellingly, his wife Anna Wylam also remained Reformed and did not convert. It was at the end of Barbara Słupecka’s life that her step-​brother, Primate Wacław Leszczyński, a week before her death, “incorporated [her] into the Roman Catholic church.”17 The language suggests that her last-​minute conversion might not have been voluntary. Her surviving daughter, Dorota Słupecka (d. after 1663), remained Calvinist as the last person in the Słupecki family, donating to the poor in the Bełżyce congregation in 1660, and keeping watch over the Opole congregation’s paraments.18 While Jan Andrzej Morsztyn (1621–​1696) converted for political reasons to Catholicism in the 1650s, his sister Teofilia (d. c. 1684), married to Andrzej Rej (d. 1662), remained Calvinist, even after her second marriage to a Catholic senator, Aleksander Derszniak (d. c. 1689). Her religiously indifferent—​and at times sacrilegious—​brother respected her deep Calvinist piety and dedicated three poems for Christmas and Good Friday to her.19 In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Jan Chodkiewicz (1537–​1579) converted to Catholicism in 1572, but his wife, Krystyna Zborowska (d. 1588), did not; she maintained a Reformed church on her estate of Gniezno, where she was buried. Although Chodkiewicz stipulated in his will that all his children be given a Catholic upbringing, the mother’s religious convictions were shared by at least two of their daughters: Anna (d. 1626), later Duchess Korecka, and Zofia (d. 1595). The latter became the first wife of Krzysztof Dorohostajski (1562–​1615), and was famous not just for her beauty, but also for the fact that she resisted attempts of the eloquent Jesuit Piotr Skarga to convert her, and she died a ­Calvinist.20 Conversions of Calvinist women due to the influence of their non-​Reformed husbands did also happen. In 1612, the Catholic Jan Alfons Lacki (d. 1636), later captain of Żmudź, signed an agreement in which he promised the parents of his Calvinist wife-​to-​be, Joanna Talwosz, “not to draw [her] away, not to dissuade, not to impeder [her]” in her practice of her Reformed faith. Despite 17 Kowalska, Barbara Słupecka, PSB, 101–​102. 18 Kowalska, Feliks Słupecki, PSB, 103; H.  Gmiterek, Jerzy Słupecki (ok.1615–​1663), PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000), 107–​108; H. Kowalska, Stanisław Słupecki (zm.1575), PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000), 117; Kot, “Słupeccy,” 25–​39; H. Merczyng, Rejowie z Nagłowic jako członkowie polskiego kościoła ewangelickiego (Warszawa: 2005): 126–​127. 19 P. Stępień, “Bez złudzeń i bez pocieszenia—​Jan Andrzej Morsztyn wobec religii,” Pamiętnik Literacki 86 (1995): 25, 27; Merczyng, Rejowie, 29; J. Tazbir, Jan Andrzej Morsztyn (1621–​ 1693), PSB, vol. 21 (1976), 809–​814; T. Wasilewski, Andrzej Rej (ok. 1616-​ok.1664), PSB, vol. 31 (1988), 186–​187. 20 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 138, 149–​150; Seredyka, Księzniczka, passim.

264 

Chapter 12

these assurances, after her parents’ death, she converted to his religion and closed the Reformed churches on her estates.21 In the same way, in 1667, the Calvinist Krystyna Barbara Hlebowicz (d. 1695)  married the Catholic Kazimierz Jan Sapieha (1637–​1720) and subsequently converted to Catholicism in 1669.22 Sometimes, Reformed women were left alone by their male relatives because they were seen as less important. During the “Deluge,” Władysław Rej (d. 1682) converted to Catholicism, knowing it would advance his career at the court of the ex-​Jesuit King Jan ii Kazimierz Waza. Rej’s conversion was political, and his wife, Teofilia Gorajska (d. 1701), remained a Calvinist, albeit a tepid one. When Rej took charge of his Calvinist nephews and nieces, he had the nephews brought up as Catholics. The nieces were allowed to stay Reformed; they later married co-​religionists, and their descendants remained Calvinist until the end of the twentieth century.23 Conversion to Calvinism affected the Lutherans too. Fabian Czema (d. 1636), the castellan of Chełm, secured assurance in a marriage contract that his only daughter, Anna (d. 1670), who was marrying a Lutheran, Zygmunt Guldenstern (1558–​1666), would keep her Reformed religion. Guldenstern kept his word, but their children were brought up as Lutherans. Their mother’s influence must have been very strong, though, and following their father’s death, they all converted to her Calvinist faith. Two of Anna Czema’s daughters married Roman Catholics: Barbara Marianna Guldenstern (d. 1681) married Władysław Łoś and allegedly converted on her deathbed. Her sister Katarzyna Lukrecja Guldenstern (d. c. 1700) married another Catholic senator from Royal Prussia, Stanisław Konopacki, who even allowed her to baptize their oldest daughter Magdalena Teresa Konopacka (1679–​1742) in the Reformed Church of St. Peter and Paul in Gdańsk. Katarzyna Lukrecja Guldenstern remained the patroness of the Reformed Church on her estates until her death. Her religion rubbed off on her Catholic descendants: her grandson was known to defend the political and civil rights of Protestants in the eighteenth century and held a deep dislike of the Jesuits.24

21 Frick, Kith, 212 (English translation is from the book); idem, Wilnianie, 349–​351 (full text in Polish). 22 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 241. 23 W. Kłaczewski, Władysław Rey (zm. 1682), PSB vol. 31 (1988), 205–​206, 209; Konarski, Szlachta, 242, 302; Merczyng, Rejowie, 24–​25; Chłapowski, Potworowscy, passim. 24 Klemp, Protestanci, 98–​99, 129; Testamenty szlachty Prus Królewskich z XVIII wieku, (ed.) J. Kowalkowski and W. Nowosad, (Warszawa: 2013), 44–​47, 207–​208, 262; Czaplewski, Fabian Czema (zm. 1636), PSB, 328–​329; Pelczar, Zygmunt Guldenstern, PSB, 141–​142.

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”

265

Faithfulness to the Reformed faith in times of adversity was not only the domain of Calvinist noblewomen—​it is just that we have the more information about them. A few burgher cases point to the same devotion in the face of increasing persecution. In 1630, priests in Cracow alleged that the Calvinist wife of the burgher Łukasz Rzeczyński called for them because she wished to convert. The city mayor sent guards, who stormed the house and dragged the husband away, while the priests forced their way into her bedroom and put a host in the mouth of the unconscious woman. “Such are their religion’s conversion methods and ways,”25 the author of the Kronika wrote bitterly. However, she was to have the last word: “And when in a few days, the priest, thinking she was his sheep, visited with a few other priests, she, turning on her deathbed to the wall, would not talk with them. Stunned and angered, they went away from her saying the devil had entered her. Soon after, having returned to health, [she] kept by the Holy Gospel and her earlier-​professed faith until her death.”26 The abovementioned letter of Katarzyna Ostroróg demonstrates that some Reformed women were genuinely interested and versed in theological matters. As we have seen, Duchess Elżbieta Radziwiłł encouraged her daughters to read the Bible on their own, and the oldest allegedly even read it in Greek and Hebrew. She may have been exceptional in that regard—​the daughters of Stanisław Szafraniec, the Calvinist stalwart in Lesser Poland, could barely write. Katarzyna, the daughter of the Brethren leader Jan Krotoski (d. 1577) and wife of Calvinist Jan Hlebowicz, could not write. Given the prominence of their fathers in the Protestant movement, their illiteracy is surprising.27 As late as 1652, a last will of Calvinist Aleksandra Czyż, a noblewoman living in Vilnius, explicitly states that she could not write, but implies she could read.28 Sources show that most Reformed women were taught how to read and write, and some were versed in the tenets of their religion. Anna Memorata (c. 1612–​c. 1644), a daughter of a Brethren konsenior, wrote poems in Latin and actively participated in the intellectual life of Leszno.29 Piotr Kochlewski left three copies of the rare and expensive Brześć Bible to his three daughters, rather than to his sons. The same Duchess Elżbieta Radziwiłł in her last days

25 26 27

Kronika Zboru, 126. Kronika Zboru, 126. W. Urban, “Umiejętność pisania w Małopolsce w drugiej połowie XVI wieku,” PH 68 (1977): 236–​237; Dworzaczkowa, Jan Krotoski (zm. 1577), PSB, 344–​345. 28 Frick, Wilnianie, 355–​357. 29 Anny Memoraty dziewicy polskiej łacińskie wiersze z lat 1640–​1644, zebrał i wydał Teodor Wierzbowski, (Warszawa:1885); R. Leszczyński, Anna Memorata (ok.1612-​po 1644), PSB, vol. 20 (1975), 419–​420.

266 

Chapter 12

engaged in a polemic with the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, calling it “a great laugh to bow before that which the Lord God told to take as his memorial”30 and soundly denounced Catholic worship. In 1581, Zofia Słupecka (d. c. 1603), in her town of Opole Lubelskie in Lesser Poland, accused the minister of Unitarianism. The seniors of the Lublin Reformed district came and examined the pastor. Her theological instincts were correct and he was removed. Zofia Słupecka, her daughter Anna Lipska, and daughter-​in-​law Barbara, née Leszczyńska, were so well-​read in the Reformed faith that all three of them earned the dedication of Krainiski’s 1603 book.31 In 1677, Krystyna Dębicka, of the influential and important Lesser Poland Calvinist middle nobility, “revoked” her Calvinism after a series of strange visions that included a black dog, the Virgin Mary, and nothing less than witnessing to the very miracle of transubstantiation. Whatever it is she saw or thought she saw, her religious quest began with dissatisfaction with Reformed understanding of communion.32 As late as 1714, before her conversion to Catholicism, a local noblewoman in Lesser Poland, Teofilia Ożarowska, had been known by the friars for many years to be a “most suborn heretic and most fanatical champion of her perfidious dogmas.”33 In 1651, the twice-​widowed Elżbieta Abramowicz (d. 1652), in exile in Vilnius after Cossacks overran her Ukrainian estates, dictated her last will. First, she testified to her Reformed faith: “Firstly, I give thanks to God in the Holy Trinity one and eternal for by the grace of God that, being begotten by parents of the evangelical religion, until now by the gift of the Holy Spirit [that religion I] faithfully and steadily [do] profess.”34 After making arrangements as to where she wished to be buried, she addressed her only son, Samuel Drohojowski (d. 1673): “Under the fear of God, I sternly warn him to remain steadfast and faithful in the evangelical religion all his life, to excel in the fear of God, hold in honesty [respect] the elders of the church, and not to withhold for the glory of God, but to give as much [as he can]. Piety, restraint, and humbleness [I wish] that he would eagerly keep, [and] not be a spendthrift with his estates, do not harm the poor folks, especially widows and orphans, but rather aid them,” 30 31

Karpluk, Pirożyński, “O Niewuwiarowaniu,” 87. asr iii, 52–​57; Kot, “Słupeccy,” 25–​39; M.  Jarczykowa, “Listy dedykacyjne Krzysztofa Kraińskiego,” in Spadkobiercy. Ewangelicy w Lublinie i na Lubelszczyźnie. Historia, kultura, ekonomia, literatura (Lublin: 2017), 375. 32 W. Kowalski, “From the „Land of Diverse Sects“ to National Religion:  Converts to Catholicism and Reformed Franciscans in Early Modern Poland,” Church History 70 (2001): 505–​508. 33 Kowalski, “From the Land,” 504; idem, “Stopnicki rejestr,” 249. 34 Liedke, Od prawosławia, 114.

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”

267

adding at the end of the will in her own hand “Jesu, have mercy on me!”35 Despite her fervent pleas, her son converted to Catholicism in 1660 and closed the Reformed church in Kozarowice near Kiev, which his mother had provided for so generously.36 The widowed Calvinist Jadwiga Podlodowska gave her Unitarian son, Adam Suchodolski (d. 1656), a solidly Reformed education first at home and then at the Dutch University in Leiden. Both were instrumental in his conversion to Calvinism in 1642. The following year he closed the Unitarian congregation in his town of Piaski Luterskie and built a Reformed church instead, together with a school and an almshouse. His newly embraced Reformed faith was strengthened by his marriage to the Calvinist Zofia Gorajska (d. c. 1666).37 The influence of a Reformed mother could go a long way: in 1726 in Lesser Poland, Tomasz Skierski converted to Catholicism, but begged the Franciscan friars not to make it public, “because he did not want to advance the death of his beloved mother with his revocation.”38 It is very probable that he quietly abjured Catholicism later, and his family continues to be Reformed to this day. In Greater Poland Zygmunt Grudziński (1568–​1655) distanced himself from the church only after the death of his mother, Jadwiga Cerekwicka (d. c. 1594), a generous patroness of the Brethren.39 In his 1645 funerary oration for Marina Jacobi, wife of a Brethren refugee pharmacist from Bohemia who had settled in town, the Lutheran pastor from Leszno, Johann Holfeld, said that she educated her children in religious matters by using the Bible and religious literature, and by reading prayers and singing.40 Women’s interest in church matters could sometimes go too far and was not always welcomed by church authorities. When in 1579 Katarzyna Ostroróg intervened in the question of the marriage of Brethren ministers, the seniors subtly showed her her place by reminding her of the passage from 2 Samuel 6:6–​7 and saying that “she touches the Ark.”41 As was mentioned in Chapter 4, unhappy with the liturgical changes of Brethren Church in the 1620s and 1630s, Barbara Przyjemska took it upon herself to hire and dismiss ministers on her estate of Cienin.42 35 J. Drohojowski, Kronika Drohojowskich cz. 1 (Kraków: 1904), 216–​217. 36 Ibid., 217. 37 Bem, “Zarys dziejów zboru,” 85, 87–​88; Kłaczewski, Adam Suchodolski, PSB, 264. 38 Kowalski, “From the Land,” 522. 39 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce, 94–​99, 133; Wisłocki, Zygmunt Grudziński, PSB, 49. 40 Szymańska, “Książka,” 426. 41 asr iv, 61. 42 asr iv, 318, 323, 325.

268 

Chapter 12

One of the areas that have been overlooked is women’s involvement, especially after 1595, in the building of new Calvinist churches and the establishing of new congregations. In Greater Poland, where perhaps this process is most pronounced, the list of such women includes Dorota Kochlewska, who built the church in Parcice (1605), Zofia Myszkowska in Rzepiszew (1608), Katarzyna Żychlińska in Żychlin (1610), Katarzyna Potworowska and her sister Barbara Szamowska in Wola Tłumakowa (1614), and Barbara Miękicka in Sierosław (1647). It is worth pointing out that some of these Brethren churches (often with parsonages, schools, and almshouses) were continuations of congregations that were shut down due to the conversion of their male patrons. At times, when some noblemen were remiss in their duties, the Reformed churches continued due to the devotion and generosity of women.43 A similar devotion to Calvinism can be observed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In 1592, Zofia Wnuczkowa (d. 1593), a wealthy widow, endowed a Reformed congregation on her estate of Szydłów, “woken by the constant desire that his glory in his holy church would from this time receive a bigger blessing.”44 In this desire, she was “animated by a passionate love of my Lord God creator, Jesus Christ my redeemer, and the Holy Ghost my comforter and ruler.”45 Wnuczkowa provided for a new stone church, an endowment for a new school with three teachers and scholarships for four young students, and a small almshouse for the poor where she guaranteed places for two male and two female pensioners. These were to be managed solely by people from “the Christian evangelical [faith], which is the confession or Sandomir denomination which was printed in 1570.”46 Szydłów was not her only charitable ­foundation. In 1593, she gave generously to the Reformed congregation in Poszuszuwie. It is worth pointing out that unlike her husband’s donations, which were purely financial, Zofia’s religious giving was focused on building an enduring, structural church legacy, and the Szydłów congregation existed until the mid-​eighteenth century. In 1595, Dorota Zawisza bought the Calvinist church in Żejmy from her Catholic-​convert son, Andrzej Zawisza (d. 1604), and donated it to the congregation in Vilnius to guarantee its continued existence. She also gave generously to the Reformed churches in Szydłów and Dziewałtów. In 1638, her daughter, Dorota Samson-​Podbereska (d. 1640), built a new brick church, a school, 43

app abc 761, 2444; asr iv 186, 188; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 103; Gorczyca, Żychlin, 97–​98. 44 mrpl, vol. 1 (Wilno 1911), 139. 45 Ibid., 139. 46 Ibid., 143.

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”

269

and an almshouse in Dziewałtów. Her daughter Marianna Grużewska (1602–​ 1673) continued to support that congregation, which existed until 1940. The church in Dziewałtów was especially popular among women benefactors: in 1615, three sisters—​Duchess Krystyna Połubińska (d. 1615), Rachela Nonhart (d. 1629), and Aleksandra Szemet—​confirmed their parents’ joint donation to that congregation.47 The Calvinist Radziwiłł women showed a genuine and sincere Reformed faith and devotion. The generous 1631 donation in Kiejdany was made by both Duke Krzysztof ii Radziwiłł and his wife Anna Kiszka (d. 1642). Their granddaughter, Duchess Anna Maria Radziwiłł (1640–​1667), fearful of death during a difficult pregnancy (which indeed claimed her life), asked her husband Duke Bogusław Radziwiłł to ensure that 1,000 zlotych was given to the ministers and the poor of the Kiejdany congregation “so that the glory of God by this church better blossomed.”48 She also donated another 1,000 zlotych to various Reformed almshouses. Her aunt Katarzyna Hlebowicz, née Princess Radziwiłł (1614–​1674), stated in her last will gratitude for being born and raised “in the holy, evangelical, alias Calvinist disdained faith.”49 The last comment was made with regard to her two daughters who, despite being raised Calvinist, converted to Roman Catholicism shortly after their marriages, and became ardent devotees.50 As one of the last Reformed in her family, Katarzyna Hlebowicz left generous gifts to the Lithuanian Brethren:  9,000 zlotych to six congregations and another 1,000 to be given to “orphans, widows, God-​fearing and living next to congregations.”51 Both Radziwiłł women requested simple burials and interment in the Reformed church in Kiejdany next to their ancestors.52 In 1632, Krystyna Dunin-​Karwicka, from Lesser Poland, built a new rectory as well as a new large stone church in her village of Sieczków. In 1644 Zofia Rej bequeathed 2,000 złotych to the needs of the Reformed Church in Lesser Poland of which 500 zlotych was given by the Cracow district for the upkeep of the widows in the Oksa congregation. When in 1628 Przecław Pieniążek (d. 1651) converted and returned the Gorlice church and school to the Roman

47

AS 2011, 71, 134; mrpl, vol. 1 (Wilno 1911), 98–​118, 137–​157; Grużewski, Kościół, 137–​ 138, 143–​145, 402–​404. 48 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 214. 49 Ibid., 240. 50 U. Kicińska, Wzorzec szlachcianki w polskich drukowanych oracjach pogrzebowych XVII wieku, (Warszawa: 2013), passim. 51 Augustyniak, Testamenty, 241. 52 Ibid., 214, 241.

270 

Chapter 12

Catholics, the remaining Reformed noble patrons and burghers continued to worship in the mansion of the Rylski family. In 1655, Marcjanna Rylska built a new Reformed church in her part of Gorlice.53 Patronage was not limited to noble women. Burgher women were also generous patrons of the Reformed church according to their means. Of the forty-​four burghers who contributed to the purchase of the Bróg building for the Cracow congregation, seven (16%) of them were women. During the same collection, out of twenty-​six nobles listed, seven (27%) were noblewomen. The Scottish Urszula Elmslie (1588–​1651), a successful merchant in her own right, was a generous patroness of the Cracow congregation and contributed to a number of their collections. Another Scotswoman, Katarzyna Hunter, (d. 1697) from Kiejdany was listed as a “provider of orphans” and a “beneficiary of God’s servants” (Reformed ministers). Another merchantwoman, Katarzyna Peterson, née King, left a bequest to the poor of the Cracow congregation and had her epitaph put in the church in Wielkanoc.54 Sometimes patronage of Reformed churches could be dangerous both legally and physically. In 1602, Agnieszka Pieniążek prevented the Catholics from regaining possession of the Calvinist church in her town of Gorlice by locking it up and stationing armed guards outside. During the 1636 siege of the Brethren church in Ostroróg by a Catholic priest, the wife of the town’s administrator, Helena Bronikowska, née Gorzeńska (d. c. 1663), rang the church bell and roused the town’s Reformed burghers: “Priests, sons of whores, violent men, (…) shoot the horses and these scoundrel priests!”55 In 1615, the Cracow Jesuits used a lapsed Scottish Calvinist, Kasper Kin, to act as an intermediary in order to buy a property outside the city’s walls. The owner, Katarzyna Gutterowa-​ Dobrodziejska, was a Calvinist, and would not sell the property to the Jesuits. When the deception came out, she tried to have the transaction annulled.56 During the “Deluge,” many Protestants were forced to convert to Catholicism under the threat of death: Rafał Latalski (d. 1664) and his wife Anna, née Krokowska, converted after hot coals were put under her dress. Latalski returned to the Reformed faith, but she, clearly psychologically traumatized, could not bring herself to show contrition for the forced conversion. Instead, she wept before the senior Bythner, saying, “God took away my spirit of repentance.”57 53

asr iii, 548, 560–​561; boz 1183; Bem, “Zarys dziejów,” 85–​89; Budka, “Zbór w Gorlicach,” 134–​141; Łukaszewicz, Dzieje kościołów, 335–​339 (the congregation in Gorlice is confused with that in Goźlice); Urban, Chłopi, 224–​225. 54 Kronika Zboru, 62–​64; Bajer, Scots, 143–​145. 55 Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 108; Kemp, Protestanci, 119–​120. 56 Kowalski, Great, 168. 57 app abc 1614.

“Most Fanatical Champions of Their Perfidious Dogmas”

271

Aleksandra Orzechowska (d. c. 1677), the wife of the Lesser Poland parliamentarian Piotr Chrząstowski (d. 1684), was an ex-​Unitarian who, in the aftermath of the “Deluge,” converted to Calvinism rather than Catholicism, as the law demanded. From 1660, she was hounded with lawsuits that sought to compel her to convert to Catholicism—​which she steadfastly refused to do until her death. Her descendants remained Calvinist until the early twentieth century. Anna Guldenstern, née Czema (d. 1670), spent the last decade of her life in Royal Prussia fighting in courts with the local Catholic priest for the right to rebuild a Reformed church on her estate. Marianna Grużewska (1602–​1673) provided all her life generously for the Reformed church in Kielmy, and was, allegedly, killed on her way to the church by a mob incited by the local Catholic priest.58 The women of the extended Leszczyński family were particularly faithful and steadfast in their defense of the Reformed Religion. Barbara Słupecka (née Leszczyńska) had the Calvinist services in Lublin moved to her mansion after the 1627 riots. It was attacked and sacked during the 1628 tumult. Later, the congregation moved to the residence of her aunt Marianna, Duchess Zasławska, née Leszczyńska (d. 1642), despite fierce opposition from Marianna’s Catholic stepson and pressure from the king. Her niece, Teodora Leszczyńska (d. c. 1660), married one of the leaders of the Lesser Poland Calvinists, Zbigniew Gorajski (1596–​1655), castellan of Kiev. Teodora’s three daughters, Zofia Suchodolska (see above), Teofilia Rej (d. 1701), and Bogumiła Potocka (d. 1701), remained Reformed all their lives, maintaining Calvinist churches on their estates despite increasing Roman Catholic hostility. Gorajski’s sister, Teofilia Hornostaj, together with her husband Samuel, built and endowed a stone church in their estate of Kozarowice near Kiev. Their daughter Elżbieta Drohojowska-​ Abramowicz, whose will was cited above, enlarged the congregation’s endowment, referring to the church in Kozarowice, not unjustifiably, as “hers.”59 These examples are far from an exhaustive list—​in fact, women’s patronage of the Reformed churches in the Commonwealth still awaits its historian. It is worth noting that a cursory review of the cases listed above and a few others seem to indicate that women’s patronage and agency blossomed and developed more visibly at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth

58 Grużewski, Zbór, 204–​206; Wajsblum, Ex regestro, passim. 59 K. Bem, “Tragiczne skutki jednej konwersji. Z działalności kontrreformacyjnej biskupa Stefana Rupniewskiego (1671–​1731),” in ed. E. Bagieńska, P. Guzowski and M. Liedke, Studia nad Reformacją (Białystok: 2010), 222–​223, 232–​233; Drohojowski, Kronika, 216–​ 217; I.  Heitzman, Zbigniew Gorajski (1590–​1655), PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960), 285–​288; Kupisz, Zbigniew Gorajski, 196–​205; Karwoski, “Leszczyńscy,” 159–​160; J.  Markiewicz, R. Szczygieł, W. Śladkowski, Dzieje Biłgoraja (Lublin: 1985), 32–​34, 64–​65.

272 

Chapter 12

centuries, when the Reformed Churches were experiencing their flourishing whilst in numerical decline. But that dynamic too awaits its historian, as does women’s Reformed spirituality and piety. The preoccupation with men’s political authority has overshadowed the important fact that Calvinism proved very attractive to women, not just in the sixteenth century but also throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Ironically, female influence in the Reformed Churches is attested by a contemporary Catholic slur Calvinist that ministers in the Commonwealth were ordained by women with the charge “Take the Spirit from under the skirt”—​a curious acknowledgement of women’s importance.60 60

Augustyniak, “Druga Reformacja,” 223–​233. She writes about a “maturing of the Reformed identity” in the Grand Duchy but does not address the question of women’s influence or agency in the process.

­c hapter 13

The Ambiguity of Numbers There is a consensus among Polish historians that the Commonwealth’s Reformation as a movement failed. However, since the nineteenth century, there has been no consensus as to why. Historians sympathetic to the Protestant movement have stressed, with varying intensity, the influence of the Jesuits, the intolerance of certain monarchs, and lack of support among burghers and the peasant population for Calvinism. Some have added that nobles were more interested in seizing church lands than in Reformed theology. On the other hand, historians more hostile to the Reformation have stressed the alleged shallowness of the movement and lack of theological depth, the Commonwealth population’s loyalty to the Catholic Church (ignoring the presence of an Eastern Orthodox peasantry), and the theological coherence of the Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the constant theological turmoil of the Protestants.1 Even a historian sympathetic to the Reformation published a book under the notorious title “The Reformation Episode.”2 Only recently has Maciej Ptaszyński challenged that narrative, pointing out that the Reformed churches established in the 1550s survived through the eighteenth century. He reminds us that in 1768, civil and political rights were restored to the Protestants—​and that Poland and Lithuania still boast Reformed churches and faithful individuals who can trace their pedigrees back to the churches established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.3 Perhaps it is time to re-​appraise not the overall numerical effects of the Commonwealth’s Reformation, but our expectations of it. There is, in my opinion, plenty of ambiguity in numbers. Take as an example the small private town of Lutomiersk in Greater Poland, which had approximately 1,000 inhabitants in 1600. The owners, the Lutomirski family, became active in the Reformation in the 1550s. Despite that, Lutomiersk’s two churches remained in Catholic hands undisturbed for another two decades. It was only in 1570 that Baltazar Lutomirski turned the main church over to the Greater Poland Brethren—​the second, smaller church remained in 1 A compilation of these arguments in Wijaczka, “The Reformation,” 9–​26. 2 W. Urban, Epizod Reformacyjny (Kraków: 1998). 3 Ptaszynski, Reformacja, 64–​ 66; idem, “The Polish-​ Lithuanian Commonwealth” in ed. H. Louthan and G. Murdock, Brill’s Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, (Leiden-​ Boston: 2015), 40–​67.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_014

274 

Chapter 13

Catholic possession. Both denominations coexisted peacefully and may have jointly supported the town’s small almshouse. There was also a school, probably under the care of the Brethren minister (the records are not clear). Lutomiersk’s main church was returned to the Catholics by the Tribunal’s decree in 1608. Thanks to an inscrutable decree of Providence, a list of people who partook of communion during a visit by a Brethren senior on September 13, 1615 survived. Of the twenty adults listed, there were six nobles, two female servants, a former minister’s daughter, ten burghers (including three Scots) and, perhaps, one peasant. At first glance, twenty communicants with just ten burghers and one peasant after forty-​five years of pastoral work in a town of 1,000 inhabitants is not impressive.4 But that is only one part of the picture. We can safely assume that the Lutomiersk congregation was larger in 1615. The patron, Mikołaj Lutomirski, was absent from town on that day, as were his family and servants. Lutomirski’s household would probably have added another ten people to the total number. The 1615 list includes only one family; the others appear to be unrelated individuals. It is very difficult to imagine that the congregation was made up only of individuals and included just one family among its members. There must have been relatives of the communicants (perhaps up to thity people) who were absent on that day. Moreover, the list does not include all of the Scots living at that time in Lutomiersk, some of whom we know from other sources were Reformed. The town’s congregation was large enough that Lutomirski’s sister, Zofia Myszkowska (d. 1615), had built them a new church in her nearby village of Rzepiszew in 1608. Furthermore, the 1615 communion service was held in Lutomirski’s mansion, not in the Rzepiszew church, and it was not held on any of the four traditional communion Sundays. All of these factors could explain the small attendance. We can thus assume that, almost a decade after the Brethren lost the town’s church, the Lutomiersk-​Rzepiszew congregation numbered at least fifty adults in a town of about 1,000 inhabitants. This gives us the number of Brethren church members at 5%. Another undated Catholic visitation of Lutomiersk from a while later (1620s?) reported that there were five Protestant households among the burghers. As late as 1637, Lutomiersk’s town records list three burghers (which would also include their immediate families) as “alteri religionis,” including the town’s mayor and one of the town’s councilors. Yet only one of them appears as a communicant in 1615. While in 1637 the mayor’s siblings are listed as Catholic, the date of their conversion is unknown, and they may have 4 asr iv, 386.

The Ambiguity of Numbers

275

been Reformed two decades earlier. These last three Protestants—​the mayor and two town councilors—​were still present in Lutomiersk as late as 1663, fifty years after the last recorded Brethren communion service held in the town.5 Perhaps, then, the Brethren did not fail after all. Perhaps they were never given a chance. When talking about the “success” of the Reformation in the Commonwealth, we should bear in mind a few facts. To begin with, the Reformation arrived on the scene quite late—​one contemporary historian called it in fact a “late Reformation.” While in the 1560s and 1570s, some countries in Europe could already claim Protestant presence for a generation or two, in most areas of the Commonwealth (excluding the towns of Royal Prussia), Protestantism was a newcomer. To add to the confusion, at the time when Europe was entering into the phase of the Second Reformation, the Commonwealth had to navigate not only the Catholic versus Protestant divide but also the internal Protestant schisms simultaneously. The relatively lax religious laws served as a double-​edged sword: on the one hand they allowed the nobles to convert to Protestantism, but on the other they allowed them to convert to any version of Protestantism they chose—​Lutheranism, Czech Brethren, Calvinism, Unitarianism, or any variant in between. This also affected the Lutheran cities of Royal Prussia. They came out in the 1550s as Lutheran, only to discover that there was more than one version of Lutheranism available to them. Gdańsk, Toruń, and Elbląg embraced the Augsburg Confession but not the anti-​Reformed bias of Lutherans in Germany and Scandinavia. However, by that time, the pro-​Calvinist followers of Melanchthon were losing ground, and increasingly the pro-​Calvinist stance these Prussian cities pursued was doomed. Thus, the building of a “Christ’s church purely Reformed” did not begin earnestly in the Commonwealth until after 1595, when the liturgy and church structures began to solidify. Secondly, with few exceptions, the Roman Catholic Church was never successfully suppressed in the Commonwealth. Every monarch post-​Zygmunt ii August was either zealously Roman Catholic or simply “anti-​Protestant,” thus guaranteeing that the Catholics could rely on the state for support to a degree that the Protestants could not. This is demonstrated not only by the fate of the Reformed congregations in royal towns throughout the realm, but also in how quickly the Roman Catholic Church received support from the Tribunals to regain its property and presence. Thus, with few exceptions, there was no area 5 app abc 761; asr iv, 188, 385–​386; Dworzaczkowa, Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce, 101; Z. Głąb, Socjotopografia Lutomierska (XIII-​XVIII wiek) (Łódź: 2017), 294–​299. The author was unaware of the 1615 communion list and based on the number of Scots and 1637 list, estimated the number of Calvinists in Lutomiersk at 30 people.

276 

Chapter 13

in the Commonwealth where the Reformed Christianity was the only available religion for any longer period of time. The Catholic Church, not the Reformed Church, was omnipresent. The 1582 Lublin district visitation clearly illustrates that the continuing presence of Catholicism was an impediment to peasants, burghers, and nobles converting to Protestantism. Conversely, in cities like Gdańsk, Toruń, Leszno, Bełżyce, and Kiejdany, where Catholicism was either severely restricted or successfully suppressed for two or three generations, Protestantism could and did manage to convert a sizable percentage of the local population. In some of those areas it was the dominant religious group until the twentieth century. Few and far between were the circumstances for sustained Protestant expansion and growth in the Commonwealth, where Reformed Protestantism flourished and endured until the eighteenth century. In most areas, Calvinism did not succeed, as it was battling with a strong Catholic presence supported by the arm of the state. But Protestantism managed to successfully supplant Catholicism in a few places. No Polish historian so far has dared to describe the urban, educated, and literate Protestant town cultures of Leszno, Gdańsk, Toruń, or Kiejdany as areas where Roman Catholicism had failed. The final point is the issue of time. In many areas, Calvinism could not succeed because it did not have enough time to plant its roots among the local populations, whether noble, burgher, or peasant. Take the example of Szydłowiec in the Crown. The town was the property of Elżbieta Szydłowiecka, who married Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black in 1548. Both embraced the Reformation, and Elżbieta on her deathbed fervently testified to her “True Evangelical Religion” (Chapter 12). The spouses, so instrumental in establishing many Reformed congregations in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, were slow to act in Szydłowiec. The first Protestant minister there is mentioned only in 1561, six years after the owners’ conversion. He preached at the castle’s chapel and perhaps in the hospital church. The Roman Catholic town church functioned undisturbed until 1564. That year, the papal nuncio Commendone gave a sensational account of Radziwiłł’s actions in Szydłowiec: “They say that he himself tore the paintings and destroyed the crosses, that he took the chalices and whatever was of gold, silver or the chasubles, and that he expelled Catholic priests.”6 The reality, not unlike Calvinist liturgy or church polity, was much less dramatic and much more decent and orderly. Around March 10, 1564, Radziwiłł 6 Pamiętniki o dawnej Polsce z czasów Zygmunta Augusta obejmujące listy Jana Franciszka Commendoni do Karola Boromeusza, t. 1, tłum. J. Krzeczkowski, oprac. M. Malinowski, (Wilno: 1851), 82.

The Ambiguity of Numbers

277

the Black arrived in Szydłowiec and ordered all the paraments and valuables of the town’s church to be recorded. He then closed and sealed the church building, prohibiting the priest from saying mass. There was no destruction, no iconoclastic fury. Radziwiłł did not tear the church down or purge its Catholic interior, as alleged. Even then, there is no record of any religious compulsion. If you were a Roman Catholic living in Szydłowiec in 1564, you could not attend mass in town. Roman Catholic citizens were free—​but not forced to—​to listen to the Protestant (post-​1565, Unitarian) minister in the castle’s chapel or the hospital church. This benign Protestant religious settlement was short-​lived. Radziwiłł the Black died in 1565. His son, Radziwiłł the Orphan, converted to Roman Catholicism in mid-​1566 and reopened the town’s church that offered the Catholic mass in early 1567. He simultaneously expelled the Unitarian pastor. Thus, the Protestant presence in Szydłowiec lasted six years, and Catholic worship was publically unavailable for merely three years. Under these circumstances, any expectation of a large, strong, and enduring Protestant community in Szydłowiec would be the equivalent of a Unitarian miracle—​a miracle that did not happen anywhere else in Europe under similar circumstances.7 Szydłowiec was not an exception but closer to the rule for most of the Reformed congregations established in the Commonwealth. Of the 234 Reformed congregations established in Lesser Poland before 1570 as listed by Merczyng, 153 (so over 65%) of them ceased to exist before 1600, thus lasting only one or two generations. The most egregious example was in Starszęcin, Lesser Poland, where one brother sacked the local church and settled a Protestant minister in 1561, and where a year later, his brother expelled the same preacher and returned the building to the Roman Catholics. In Giercice, the same owner performed those actions within a period of a decade. In the Zamoyski family, the father converted to Calvinism in the 1550s; his son converted to Catholicism in the 1560s and suppressed the Reformed congregation established by his father.8 With this brevity, it is not reasonable to expect that the population would embrace Calvinism en masse in 1561 and return to Catholicism a year, or ten years later. The Lublin 1582 visitation shows some peasant attendance in Reformed churches after about thirty years of presence in one of the most heavily Protestantized areas of Lesser Poland. However, when in the next decade the 7 M. Chachaj, “Mikołaj Radziwiłł Czarny a kościół katolicki w Szydłowcu,” in ed. J. Wijaczka, Z dziejów parafi i szydłowieckiej. Materiały sesji popularnonaukowej 21 lutego 1998 roku (Szydłowiec: 1998), 9–​13. 8 Merczyng, Zbory, 52, 75.

278 

Chapter 13

nobles began to convert to Catholicism, the peasants again followed their masters. In cases where the Catholic Church regained the church buildings, Reformed peasants and burghers conformed to the majority around them even if the landlord remained Reformed.9 This is not odd or unusual. In Western Europe, the reformation of a community took decades and three generations or more to win the population over to the new church. Where the Roman Church was not fully suppressed, it lingered, often as a sizable minority. Let us return to the case of Lutomiersk. If my calculations are correct, fifty years after arriving in town and a decade after they lost their privileged (but not exclusive) status, the Protestants in town numbered about five percent. The number does not look impressive until we compare it with the province of Utrecht in the Dutch Republic. There, the Reformed Church had been declared the only official public religion in 1580 and Catholic public worship was outlawed but never fully suppressed. By 1618 (during roughly the same period), Dutch Reformed Church members numbered approximately ten percent in the province. If in more pro-​Protestant circumstances the population did not turn en masse to Calvinism after 50 years, how could one expect different results in Poland? To demand a swift and complete conversion of the Commonwealth’s population, when it did not happen anywhere else, is not reasonable. The Dutch comparison, while not determinative, can be helpful in the other cases, too. Where in communities such as Krokowa, Briże, Kielmy, Oświęcim, or the Nida river valley, Protestantism succeeded in securing the backing of the secular authorities, suppressing Catholic worship, and lasting longer than twenty years, there it has proven to be a success beyond the “failure stereotypes.” The thirty percent of Ostroróg’s burgher population belonging to the Brethren in the 1620s is very close to the thirty percent of Dutch Calvinists in Holland or Friesland at the same time. Protestant burghers in Krokowa, Chmielnik, Baranów Sandomierski, and even tiny Kossów are proof that Calvinism could, in favorable circumstances, win the hearts and souls of a considerable portion of the population. In Wodzisław, where the Calvinist church existed from 1551, in 1613, the town’s owner gave the burghers the choice to convert to Catholicism or leave—​and over half of them left. This, again, parallels patterns in other Reformed locations, where despite cool beginnings, after 60 or so years, the population became attached to their Calvinist faith. The Polish, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian peasants and burghers did not become Reformed primarily because

9 A. Jobert, De Luther a Mohila. La Pologne dans la crise de la Chrétienté 1517–​1648 (Paris: 1974), 145 makes a similar point in passing but does not elaborate on it.

The Ambiguity of Numbers

279

most were not acquainted long enough; not because of the lack of appeal of Calvinism. Where their exposure lasted longer than one or two decades—​be it by persuasion, force, preaching, or any combination thereof—​many of them embraced Calvinism, and, as in the case of Kozy, did so faithfully, steadfastly, and despite many odds. In this way, they were as “obdurate” or “godly” as their Calvinist peers in other parts of Europe.10 By the seventeenth century, Calvinists in the Crown and Grand Duchy began to demonstrate underestimated similarities to their Reformed kin in Europe. Even accepting the problematic assertions that in the 1560s, “average nobles tended to make little of theology and theologians,”11 and that for “the majority of noble adherents of the Reformation both the motives behind their accession to that movement, and their choice of a particular confession was more secular than religious,”12 we must accept that after 1595, their children and grandchildren were—​often at great personal cost—​faithful Calvinists. Piety, theology, church polity, and personal life took on a decidedly Reformed flavor. Looking into human hearts and souls after 500 years is risky business, but the religious foundations of schools, hospitals, churches, hymnals, sermons, Bibles, and even letters reveal a genuine devotion in, affection for, and dedication to their “holy, evangelical, alias Calvinist disdained faith.” One must also bear in mind that we have just brief snapshots of the events of the time. Often, the converted and genuinely devout Catholic children were ashamed of their ancestors’ Reformed piety, and did their best to expunge it. The tales of the deathbed conversions of almost all the Calvinist Leszczyńskis, or the colorful story of Stefan Żychliński, ironically often show the religious zeal of not only the Catholics who invented these fables, but also their Calvinist ancestors who did not convert. Calvinism had a universal appeal that crossed social boundaries. Gdańsk, Leszno, Kiejdany, Oksa, Kozy—​all managed to produce their own distinct local intellectual and religious traditions rooted in their dominant Reformed culture. Finally, the appraisal of the legacy of the Reformation in Poland and Lithuania has been marred by the region’s turbulent history in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. For many Polish historians to this day, the “failure of the Reformation in Poland” was and is equated with the lack of any large, historically-​rooted Calvinist population living in the lands of the former Commonwealth, speaking Polish, and identifying as ethnically Polish in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For a number of complicated reasons, 10 Burnett, Teaching, 226, 257–​258. 11 J. Tazbir, “Szlachta i teologowie,” in idem, Państwo bez stosów i inne szkice (Kraków: 2000), 59. 12 Ibid., 57.

280 

Chapter 13

the majority of the Commonwealth’s remaining Protestants identified in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as German or Lithuanian and spoke those languages, and thus could not be deemed as “Polish Reformation success.” But if the Lutheran cities of Gdańsk, Toruń, and Elblag, the Reformed towns of Leszno, and the peasants around Briże or Hołdunów are not proof of “success,” what else are they? As Maciej Ptaszyński and others have pointed out, the Reformation in the sixteenth century managed to produce lasting Reformed populations in some areas of the Commonwealth. The fact that their ethnic, national, or linguistic identification changed or took on a new meaning in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries does not mean they were a failure. I would, in fact, argue the opposite. Their existence, their worship, and their prayers (whether in German, Lithuanian, or Polish) continue to this day. Reformed church bodies established in the 1550s and 1600s in Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, and the Grand Duchy continued and still exist today, using the same 1637 Great Gdańsk Agenda liturgy. Franceso Stancaro’s (1501–​1574) direct descendants continued to serve as ministers in the Lithuanian Reformed Church until 1793, and through the female line until 1939. In Lesser Poland, descendants of Franciszek Płachta from Secemin served as pastors for nine generations until the death of Rev. Kazimierz Szefer (1861–​1939), the last pastor in the last Calvinist Lesser Poland congregation of Sielec. In Greater Poland, dynasties of Cassius pastors lasted until 1848, while families from Leszno continued to supply pastors for the church there and in Warsaw until 1948 as well as lay church leaders to this day. The church in Briże in Lithuania sees the descendants of the burghers and peasants for whom Duke Krzysztof i Radziwiłł built a church back in 1589 every Sunday, although today they pray in Lithuanian, and not Polish or Scots as some of their ancestors did. The few congregations of the Polish Reformed Church today still have among their faithful the descendants of Grużewski, Kurnatowski, Mackiewicz, Makowski, Rayski, Skierski, Świda, Taylor, and other noble families who shielded and guarded their church for 500  years. The Reformed congregation in Hołdunów is Lutheran today (due to nineteenth-​century history), but it still worships on Sundays, no doubt warming the hearts of their obdurate Calvinist ancestors from Kozy, gathered now upon a greater, brighter shore. Perhaps instead of speaking of “failures” and “success” of Reformed Christianity in Poland, it would be helpful to look more closely at its legacy—​where it endures to this day and where its light went out only a few decades ago.

­c hapter 14

Conclusion The Commonwealth’s Protestantism has been underestimated since the nineteenth century—​by those sympathetic to the Reformed cause and by those whose sympathies lie elsewhere. The narrative has predominantly been that Protestantism enjoyed a short and intensive bloom between 1565 and 1573, followed by an immediate decline. Political clout and legislative success have been the lenses used for judgment. This book is something of a revisionist endeavor. Throughout it, I have consistently questioned the notion of the Reformation in the Commonwealth as a “failure.” In the chapters focusing on the nobles, burghers, and peasants, I suggested that under certain conditions, Polish and Lithuanian Calvinism showed similarity in growth patterns to its contemporaries west of its borders. I  argued that while socio-​economic factors, particularly the landlord-​ peasant dynamic, did indeed affect Protestantism’s spread, in some areas of the realm, Calvinism was quite successful. The problem for its long-​term survival was not that it lacked theological depth, nor that its principles alienated Polish peasants. Rather, it was the fact that there were very few areas where Catholicism was completely suppressed long enough for the seeds of Protestantism to take hold. Where Catholicism was suppressed and Protestantism could endure longer than two generations, the Reformed showed growth and resilience. There were areas of the Commonwealth that embraced Calvinism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and that remained Protestant until the mid-​ twentieth century. The complicated social and political events that occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries led a majority of the Reformed to stop speaking Polish as their daily language (and in some cases they never did in the first place). Protestantism thus did not fail but only changed its language. My goal has been to demonstrate that in many cases, descendants of the people and families described in this book as Calvinists continue to worship as such today—​former nobles, burghers, and peasants. I have also argued that the often-​leveled accusations of having only a “tepid faith” or having a lack of depth hurled at Commonwealth’s Reformed are false. As with the faithful of every religion, in any nation, the level of religious commitment varied. This has not changed much today. There are those who generously support their churches and those who do not. From the beginning

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004424821_015

282 

Chapter 14

of the seventeenth century onwards, being a Calvinist in the Commonwealth became quite expensive. And some of the faithful gave very generously to the church. In this context I sketched just how dedicated women were to Calvinism, and how their contribution to the “holy, evangelical, alias Calvinist disdained faith” has so far been under-​researched and underestimated. By briefly describing patterns of Reformed piety, I showed that the first two generations of Protestants were searching for their confessional identity until the 1600s, as evidenced by the fluidity between Calvinism and Unitarianism, and of the Brethren between Lutheranism and Calvinism until c. 1608. From the 1600s, patterns of worship, piety, and intellectual outlook began to mirror that of their Western co-​religionists. This brings me to my perhaps most important point. Even allowing for the slow political decline of Calvinism after the 1570s, paradoxically, as a confessional body, the years 1595–​1634 were a time of flourishing for the Commonwealth’s Reformed. The forging of the Reformed Churches began at a time when in Western Europe, Lutheran and Reformed identities had begun to ossify and confessionalization had set in. At the same time, the nascent theological movement in the Commonwealth was facing the Unitarian schism. Thus, the Sandomir Consensus was a theological agreement—​tellingly silent on issues of church polity and liturgy—​that the three Churches would stay Trinitarian and Protestant. It took twenty-​five years for them to commit to be Reformed, and that is why, soon after the 1595 General Synod of Toruń, the Lutherans left—​and the two Calvinist Churches in Lesser Poland and Lithuania and the Brethren Church began to draw closer together. Here is where the Sandomir Confession proved to be very useful, once it was reinterpreted as a Reformed theological document. This—​what I  call—​a flourishing during numerical decline post-​1595 is very visible when we look at the changes in church polity, liturgy, and practice. The church structure of Lesser Poland Reformed Church became less “accidently congregational” or “presbygationist” and more Presbyterian. In Greater Poland, the episcopal polity of the Brethren came under pressure from within (Brethren pastors studying abroad at Calvinist universities) and without (the other two Reformed Churches). The churches began to enforce church discipline on their members in a more sustained and regular fashion—​a subject ignored or misunderstood until now. Finally, liturgical uniformity and reform began to take place in all three Churches. All of these trends found their culmination in the 1634 Włodawa General Convocation, which has not received proper attention. I  have compared it to the English Westminster Assembly or the Dutch Synod of Dort. While the 1634 Włodawa Convocation is not as well known, it is not, as one historian has

Conclusion

283

suggested, a symbol of the Commonwealth’s “utter decline.”1 It was, in fact, the exact opposite. Włodawa unified the three Churches’ structures into a more Presbyterian model, allowing for some flexibility. It unified three very different liturgical traditions while allowing for local variation. It nonetheless produced a unified liturgy that bound and united the three Churches, a liturgy that is still used by their successor churches today. Finally, it provided for a theological underpinning of church discipline in all three Churches. While far from perfect, the Włodawa Convocation’s provisions solidified the Reformed just in time for the calamity of the Swedish “Deluge.” All of these reforms were achieved some sixty years after the alleged peak of Polish Protestantism. It is a bitter irony—​or to use Calvinist terms an “inscrutable decree of Providence”—​that the Commonwealth’s Calvinists did not have time to enjoy peacefully the fruits of their unification labors. In 1648, the Chmielnicki Cossack rebellion in Ukraine began; in 1654, the Muscovy army invaded the Grand Duchy and laid it waste; and in 1655, the Swedish “Deluge” began. By the time these conflicts were over, the devastated country looked for a scapegoat—​and the weak ex-​Jesuit King Jan ii Kazimierz Waza was more than happy to provide one, blaming first the Unitarians, and once they were gone, all Protestants. The theological and liturgical bloom of the Commonwealth’s Calvinists arrived just before their catastrophe begun. Were they a failure? On October 26, 1918, in the rural Calvinist church in Sielec, Lesser Poland, a few dozen faithful gathered for the first church service and first celebration of the Lord’s Supper to be held since the spring of 1915, when World War i engulfed the area and most of the congregants fled or were deported to Russia’s interior. The pastor led those gathered into the liturgy of confession. The old-​fashioned Polish and the meticulous articulation of every word by the minister gave it an additional aura of quaintness and gravity: Because on this day, faithful people of God, we have gathered here by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that we may use the holy sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ—​it is a meet thing that we do this holy cause to the glory of God and for our salvation. This we are unable to do with our own strength, without the help and aid of the Holy Spirit, who aids us in the holy prayers in our infirmities. And so, humbling ourselves before the mighty majesty of the Lord, we invoke the Holy Spirit, our Lord and God, singing … 1 Tworek, “Starania,” 138; Gmiterek, “Problemy,” 114–​115 is less critical.

284 

Chapter 14

After the hymn, the liturgy continued with the prayer of confession: Only begotten Son of God, Lord Jesus Christ, heavenly food and the vivification of our souls, behold we come now to your table unworthy, sick to you the doctor, tainted by sin to you the Savior, unclean to the well of grace, blind to light, wretches to you Lord almighty. And falling down in front of your almighty majesty on our knees with our hearts, we ask you, doctor of our souls—​grant to heal our sickness by your Holy Word; may you wash the uncleanness of our conscience. By your precious blood, enlighten the blindness of our hearts; by your Holy Spirit, clothe our nakedness with your justice, cover our vices with your merit so that we might become worthy wedding guests at your table from which we receive through faith heavenly food and drink, and [at which] you serve us with your godly hand. The pastor ended this part of the liturgy by proclaiming with a firm voice: In the place of Christ, I, as his servant and administer of his mysteries, sent to you, God’s beloved children, who in living faith and true repentance turn back to your Lord God—​by the Word of the Lord I declare and tell unto you, that your God Heavenly Father, through his beloved son Jesus Christ our Savior, deigns to be gracious unto you, absolving you all your sins and falls, and our of pure grace giving to you justice, the right to community of his holy table, and thus [making you] co-​heirs to everlasting life. All of which is being said to you effectively by the keys of the heavenly kingdom, in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, Lord God in the Holy Trinity one and holy. Amen. Following the prayers over the gifts, the congregants gathered standing in a circle around a simple communion table. The rhetorical questions followed: “The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The chalice of blessing that we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” Then, the minister in somber quiet distributed the elements. The service ended with the pastor pronouncing the words of the Aaronic blessing on those gathered. The men and women answered “amen,” and after bidding the minister good-​bye, went into their carriages and left for their estates. It was another Sunday, and the service was conducted, as it should always be, decently and in good order. Later that day the pastor meticulously entered the congregants’ names into the book of communicants.

Conclusion

285

There would have not been anything unusual in this scene other than the fact that it took place in Sielec, a rural Calvinist congregation in Lesser Poland established around 1634. The liturgy used was that from the Great Gdańsk Agenda of 1637, and the scripture was from the Gdańsk Bible of 1632, a copy of which lay open on the table, next to the communion silverware dating back to the seventeenth century. The sacrament was not just a congregational affair but also a family one. The presiding pastor, Kazimierz Szefer (1861–​1939), was a ninth-​generation descendant of the pastors serving in Lesser Poland, going back to Franciszek Płachta (c. 1560–​1634) from the town of Secemin, one of first centers of Calvinism in the Crown. Many of his ancestors, including the superintendent Tomasz Węgierski, had taken part in the Włodawa General Convocation that produced both the liturgy and the Bible used. The sixteen people that took the Lord’s Supper that day included members of the Bobrownicki, Konarski, Russocki, and Skierski families. Their names have been recorded in the church books for the same amount of time, some of them having brought their worn-​out family copies of the Gdańsk Bible to worship that day. They have all withstood many adversities, and they were still there where their ancestors worshipped. Perhaps the Commonwealth’s Reformed deserve a little more credit than they have been given.

Bibliography

Abbreviations

KH Kwartalnik Historyczny OiRwP Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce PH Przegląd Historyczny psb Polski Słownik Biograficzny RwP Reformacja w Polsce mrpl Monumenta Reformationis Polonicae et Lithuanicae mpv Monumenta Poloniae Vaticana

Primary Sources

app abc –​Archiwum Państwowe w Poznaniu, Akta Braci Czeskich, Poznań. asr i –​ Akta Synodów Różnowierczych. Małopolska. Tom I (1550–​1559). Oprac. Maria Sipayłło. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 1966. asr ii –​ Akta Synodów Różnowierczych w Polsce, Tom II (1560–​1570). Oprac. Maria Sipayłło. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego,1972. asr iii –​ Akta Synodów Różnowierczych w Polsce. Tom III (Małopolska 1571–​1632). Oprac. Maria Sipayłło. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1983. asr iv  –​ Akta Synodów Różnowierczych w Polsce. Tom IV (Wielkopolska 1569–​1632). Oprac. Maria Sipayłło. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 1997. AS 1915 –​ Akta synodów prowincjonalnych Jednoty Litewskiej 1611–​1625. Monumenta Reformationis Polonicae et Lithuanicae, Serya IV, Zeszyt II. Wilno 1915. AS 2011  –​ Akta Synodów Prowincjonalnych Jednoty Litewskiej 1626–​1637. Warszawa: ­Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2011. AS 2019  –​ Akta Synodów Prowincjonalnych Jednoty Litewskiej 1638–​1655. Warszawa: ­Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2020 (expected). Akta sejmu walnego warszawskiego in anno 1585. Kraków: wyd. A. Czuczyński, 1901, SRP, vol. xviii. boz 1183 –​“Actorum synodalium in districtu ecclesiarum Minoris Poloniae Lublinensi 1636–​1663.” Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Warsaw. buw ser 592 –​“Księga dystryktowa krakowska zawierająca akta i uchwały synodów, konwokacji, kongregacji i pomniejszych zjazdów i narad dystryktu krakowskiego oraz prowincjonalnych Małopolski i generalnych z lat 1632–​1722.” Dep. Wil. 41  –​“Acta albo constitucie zborów districtu sendomirskiego zaczęte 1618 roku.” Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Warsaw.

288 Bibliography Dyaryusze sejmowe z r. 1585. In Scriptores rerum Polonicarum, vol. 18. Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1901. Kronika Zboru Ewangelickiego Krakowskiego. Przez x.  Wojciecha Węgierskiego. Kraków: Nakładem Parafii Ewangelickiej w Krakowie, 2007. Księga Wtóra –​ “Księga Wtóra Kościoła Ewangel[icko] Reformowanego w Wielkiejnocy, zaczynająca się od roku 1637, Księga kościelna zbory Wielkanockiego y Lucianowskiego; sporządzona y spisana w roku 1637.” Archiwum Parafii Ewangelicko-​ Augsburskiej Św. Marcina, Cracow. LVIA F-​606/​1/​180–​181 “Księgi kościelne parafii w Bielicy 1692–​1833.” LVIA F-​606/​1/​144–​145, “Księgi kościelne parafii w Kiejdanach 1641–​1799.” LVIA F-​606/​1/​195–​198 “Księgi kościelne parafii w Kojdanowie 1653–​1765.” LVIA F-​606/​1/​232 “Księgi kościelne parafii w Słucku 1710–​1760.” LVIA F-​606/​1/​102–​103 “Księgi kościelne parafii w Wilnie 1631–​1731.” Muz. Pr. XVIII D 8 –​Národní Muzeum (National Musuem in Prague). Ossoliński, Jan Zbigniew. Pamiętnik. Edited by Józef Długosz. Warszawa: Zakład Narodowy Im. Ossolińskich, 1983. Pamiętniki o dawnej Polsce z czasów Zygmunta Augusta obejmujące listy Jana Franciszka Commendoni do Karola Boromeusza, t. 1. tłum. J. Krzeczkowski, oprac. M. Malinowski, (Wilno: 1851). Pamiętnik Teodora Jewłaszewskiego nowogrodzkiego podsędka 1546–​1604. Warszawa: R. Fredlejn, 1860. Wengersch, A. (Andrzej Węgierski). Libri Quattuor Skavoniae Reformatae. (Edited by Janusz Tazbir). Varsoviae: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973.



Unpublished Works

Jurzak, Bartłomiej. “Haereticorum Ecclesiam.” Dzieje koziańskiej społeczności protestanckiej XVI–​XIX wieku (manuscript on file). Konarski, Stanisław. Świdowie herbu Grabie odmienne. Paryż, 1966. Miklauskas, Rimas. Karność kościelna w ustawodawstwie Jednoty Litewskiej. Warszawa, 1998. Płużańska, Zofia. Zygmunt Niszczycki. Zapoznany parlamentarzysta szlachecki i klient radziwiłłowski. Warszawa, 1999.



Published Works

Altwood, Craig D. The theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Commenius. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009.

Bibliography

289

Anny Memoraty dziewicy polskiej łacińskie wiersze z lat 1640–​1644, zebrał i wydał Teodor Wierzbowski. Warszawa: K. Kowalewski, 1885. Arndt, Paul. “Die reformierten Geistlichen im Stadt-​und Landkreis Thorn 1586–​1921.” Mitteilungen des Coppernicus-​Vereins für Wissenschaft und Kunst zu Thorn H. 47 (1939): 1–​52. Asch, Ronald G. “European nobilities and the Reformation.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, ed. Ulinka Rublack, 565–​582. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Augustyniak, Uruszula. “ ‘Druga Reformacja’ w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w 1 połowie XVII wieku. W poszukiwaniu tożsamości wyznaniowej.” In Sztuka i dialog wyznań w XVI i XVII wieku. Materiały Sesji Stowarzyszenia Historyków Sztuki Wrocław, listopad 1999, 223–​233. Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie Historyków Sztuki, 2000. Augustyniak, Uruszula. Dwór i klientela Krzysztofa Radziwiłła (1585–​1640). Mechanizmy patronatu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2001. Augustyniak, Uruszula. Historia Polski 1572–​1795. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2008. Augustyniak, Uruszula. “Instrukcja Bogusława Radziwiłła dla opiekunów jego córki, Ludwiki Karoliny. Przyczynek do edukacji młodej ewangeliczki w XVII wieku.” OiRwP 36 (1991): 215–​235. Augustyniak, Uruszula. Państwo świeckie czy księże? Spór o rolę duchowieństwa katolickiego w Rzeczpospolitej w czasach Zygmunta III Wazy. Wybór tekstów. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2013. Augustyniak, Uruszula. Testamenty ewangelików reformowanych w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w XVI–​XVII wieku. wyd. 2. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2014. Augustyniak, Uruszula. “Zygmunt Myszkowski (ok.1562–​1615).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 404–​407. Bagieńska, Elżbieta. “Tolerancja czy przymus wyznaniowy? Z dziejów polityki wyznaniowej Radziwiłłów birżańskich.” In Studia nad Reformacją, eds. Elżbieta Bagieńska, Piotr Guzowski and Marzena Liedke, 23–​26. Białystok:  Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, 2010. Bajer, Peter Paul. Scots in Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. Leiden–​Boston: Brill, 2012. Banach, Andrzej Kazimierz. “Konwersje protestantów na katolicyzm w Koronie w latach 1560–​1600.” Prace Historyczne 77 (1985): 21–​35. Barłowska, Maria. “Pieśni mięsopustne” Jana Stoińskiego—​ powrót.” OiRwP 60 (2016): 11–​27. Barwiński, Edward. “Zygmunt III i dysydenci.” RwP 1 (1921): 51–​53. Barycz, Henryk. “Marcin Krowicki.” PSB, vol. 15 (1970): 350–​353. Barycz, Henryk. “Franciszek Lismanin (1504–​1566).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 465–​470.

290 Bibliography Barycz, Henryk. “Meandry Lismaninowskie.” OiRwP 16 (1971): 37–​66. Barycz, Henryk. “Mikołaj Dłuski.” PSB, vol. 5 (1939–​1946): 195–​197. Baszanowski, Jan. “Statystyka wyznań a zagadnienia etniczne Gdańska w XVII i XVIII wieku.” Zapiski Historyczne 54 (1989): 57–​81. Bem, Kazimierz. “Czynnik wyznaniowy w polityce nominacyjnej Stefana Batorego na starostwa grodowe w Koronie—​początek kontrreformacji?.” KH 122 (2015): 457–​473. Bem, Kazimierz. “ ‘From many different sources:’ The Formation of the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed Liturgy.” In Liturgy in Migration. From the Upper Room to Cyberspace, ed. Teresa Berger, 101–​130. Pueblo Liturgical Press, 2012. Bem, Kazimierz. “O znakach, ścięgnach i ustrojach kościelnych oraz o różnicach prawdziwych i mniemanych—​w odpowiedzi Maciejowi Ptaszyńskiemu.” OiRwP 59 (2015): 249–​257. Bem, Kazimierz. “Protestant Solidarity in the Eighteenth Century: Relief Efforts of the Walloons for the Polish Reformed Churches.” Church History 73 (2004): 90–​113. Bem, Kazimierz. “Tragiczne skutki jednej konwersji. Z działalności kontrreformacyjnej biskupa Stefana Rupniewskiego (1671–​1731).” In Studia nad Reformacją, eds. Elżbieta Bagieńska, Piotr Guzowski, and Marzena Liedke, 218–​240. Białystok: Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, 2010. Bem, Kazimierz. “Ustroje kościołów ewangelicko-​reformowanych w Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów na przełomie XVI i XVII wieku.” OiRwP 57 (2013): 123–​153. Bem, Kazimierz. “Zarys dziejów zboru ewangelicko-​reformowanego w Piaskach Luterskich (Wielkich) koło Lublina 1563–​1649–​1849.” OiRwP 43 (1999): 85–​98. Benedict, Paul. Christ Churches Purely Reformed. A Social history of Calvinism. New Haven—​London: Yale University Press, 2002. Bibrzycki, Kazimierz. “Jan Palczowski (ok. 1507–​1565).” PSB, vol. 25 (1980): 61–​62. Bidlo, Jaroslav. Jednota Bratrská v prvnim vyhnanství, 4 vols. Praha 1900–​1932. Biedrzycka, Agnieszka and Jan Szturc. “Jakub Sylvius (zm. po 1583).” PSB, vol. 46 (2009): 215–​218. Bielecka, Janina. “Bracia czescy w Lesznie. Organizacja i działalność (1550–​1817).” Rocznik Leszczyński 2 (1978): 153–​173. Birecki, Piotr. “Kalwińskie budowle kościele na terenie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w okresie nowożytnym.” Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici 46 (2005): 133–​147. Bodniak, Stanisław. “Jan Firlej (ok.1521–​1574).” PSB, vol. 7 (1948–​1958): 1–​6. Bondyra, Wiesław. “Akta odnowienia parafii żółkiewskiej z 4 sierpnia 1609.” In Żółkiewscy w ziemi chełmskiej, ed. Bohdan Kiełbasa, 65–​68. Żółkiewka: 2011. Bondyra, Wiesław. “Ostatni przedstawiciele rodu Żółkiewskich w Żółkiewce w XVII i połowie XVIII wieku.” In Żółkiewscy w ziemi chełmskiej, ed. Bohdan Kiełbasa, 69–​87, Żółkiewka: 2011. Budka, Włodzimierz. “Zbór w Gorlicach i jego patroni.” RwP 3 (1924): 134–​141.

Bibliography

291

Byliński, Janusz. “Stanisław Stadnicki zw. Diabłem (ok. 1551–​ 1610).” PSB, vol. 41 (2002): 425–​432. Burnett, Amy Nelson. Teaching the Reformation. Ministers and Their Message in Basel 1529–​1629. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Chachaj, Marian. “Edukacja synów, wnuków i prawnuków Mikołaja Reja.” In Mikołaj Rej z Nagłowic. W pięćsetną rocznicę urodzin, ed. Waldemar Kowalski, 257–​273. Kielce: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 2005. Chachaj, Marian. “Mikołaj Radziwiłł Czarny a kościół katolicki w Szydłowcu.” In Z dziejów parafii szydłowieckiej. Materiały sesji popularnonaukowej 21 lutego 1998 roku, ed. Jacek Wijaczka, 9–​13. Szydłowiec:  Muzeum Ludowych Instrumentów Muzycznych, 1998. Cherner, Ewa. Słownik Biograficzny duchownych ewangelicko-​reformowanych. Jednota Litewska i Jednota Wileńska 1815–​1939. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2017. Chłapowski, Dezydery. Potworowscy. Kronika rodzinna. Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo DiG, 2002. Chłapowski, Krzysztof and Halina Kowalsk. “Franciszek Rylski (zm. 1604).” PSB, vol. 33 (1992): 493–​494. Cynarski, Stanisław. “Krosno w XVII i XVIII wieku.” In Krosno. Studia z dziejów miasta i regionu (do roku 1918), ed. Józef Grabacik, vol. 1, 183–​224. Kraków: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. Cynarski, Stanisław. “Rzecz o mizerii ministrowskiej w latach 30 XVII wieku.” OiRwP 4 (1959): 187–​208. Czaplewski, Paweł. “Fabian Czema (zm. 1636).” PSB, vol. 4 (1938): 328–​329. Czapliński, Władysław. “Andrzej Firlej (zm.1649/​50).” PSB, vol. 6 (1948): 474–​476. Czapliński, Władysław. “Dobiesław Ciekliński (zm. 1653).” PSB, vol. 4 (1938): 42. Czapliński, Władysław. “Henryk Firlej (zm. 1626).” PSB, vol. 6 (1948): 477–​478. Czapliński, Władysław. “Jan Zbigniew Ossoliński (1555–​1623).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 428–​431. Czapliński, Władysław. “Stefan Czarniecki (1599–​1665).” PSB, vol. 4 (1938): 208–​211. Czapliński, Władysław. “Wacław Leszczyński (1605–​1666).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 149–​151. Czamańska, Iwona. Wiśniowieccy. Monografia Rodu. Poznań:  Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2007. Czapnik, Marianna. “Księgozbiór Krzysztoporskich. Z dziejów renesansowych bibliotek szlacheckich.” In:  Kolekcje Historyczne. Kolekcje Historyczne XVI-​XVII wieku, 152–​215. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2009. Czyż, Renata. Obrona wiary w edycjach postylli Grzegorza z Żarnowca. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2008. Dewald, Jonathan. Status, Power, and Identity in Early Modern France. The Rohan Family 1550–​1715. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015.

292 Bibliography Drohojowski, Jan. Kronika Drohojowskich cz. 1. Kraków: L. Anczyc i Spółka, 1904. Dubas-​Urwanowicz, Ewa. “The last two of the Jagiellons and Radziwiłłs. Between Cooperation and Opposition.” In Faworyci i Opozycjoniści. Król a elity polityczne w Rzeczypospolitej XV–​XVIII wieku, eds. Mariusz Markiewicz and Ryszard Skowron, 135–​148. Kraków: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, Państwowe Zbiory Sztuki, 2006. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Adam Grodziecki (zm. 1647).” PSB, vol. 8 (1960): 620–​622. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Andrzej Leszczyński (ok. 1559–​ 1606).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 101–​103. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Andrzej Leszczyński (1606–​1651).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 103–​104. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Andrzej Męciński (zm.ok.1603).” PSB, vol. 20 (1975): 493. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Bogusław Leszczyński (ok.1612–​ 1659).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 107–​111. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Hieronim Gostomski (zm. 1609).” PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960): 364–​366. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Jan Gostomski (ok. 1576–​1623).” PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960): 366–​367. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Łukasz Górka (ok.1533–​1573).” PSB, vol. 8 (1960): 412–​414. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Oblicze wyznaniowe senatu Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej w dobie kontrreformacji.” In Muneria Literaria. Księga ku czci prof. Romana Pollaka ed. Włodzimierz Dworzaczek, Poznań: Poznańskie Towrzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 1962. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. Szlichtyngowie w Polsce. Szkic genealogiczno-​historyczny. Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff, 1938. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz. “Wacław Leszczyński (ok.1576–​1628).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 147–​149. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce w XVI i XVII wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 1997. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Bracia czescy-​kalwiniści-​ewangelicy reformowani:  problem terminologii.” Biblioteka 18 (2005): 143–​148. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Geneza i losy Postylli na ewangelie Jana Bythnera.” Biblioteka 9 (2005): 149–​153. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Jan Krotoski (zm. 1577).” PSB, vol. 15 (1970): 344–​345. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Konwersje na katolicyzm szlachty ewangelickiej wyznania czeskiego w Wielkopolsce w XVI I XVII wieku.” OiRwP 50 (2006): 89–​100. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Paweł Orlicz (1599–​1649).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 197–​198. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “W sprawie autorstwa pisma o ‘mizerii’ ministrowskiej.” OiRwP 14 (1969): 195–​198. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Z dziejów zboru w Krokowie w XVII i XVIII wieku.” In Europa-​ Słowiańszczyzna-​Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego, 533–​542. Poznań: uam, 1970.

Bibliography

293

Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Zbory braci czeskich w dawnym powiecie konińskim” In: Z dziejów braci czeskich w Polsce, Dworzaczkowa, Janina, 41–​47. Poznań:  Publikacje Instytutu Historii uam, 2003. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Zbór braci czeskich w Karminie.” OiRwP 13 (1963): 185–​198. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Zbór braci czeskich w Ostrorogu.” In:  Z dziejów braci czeskich w Polsce, Dworzaczkowa, Janina, 32–​40. Poznań: Publikacje Instytutu Historii uam, 2003. Dworzaczkowa, Janina. “Zbór i szkoła braci czeskich w Koźminku ok. 1554–​1614.” Rocznik Kaliski 18 (1985): 57–​65. Dworzaczkowa, Janina and Halina Kowalska. “Jan Rozdrażewski (ok. 1543–​1600).” PSB, vol. 32 (1991): 371–​373. Dybaś, Bogusław. “Henryk Strobrand (1548–​1609).” PSB, vol. 44 (2006–​2007): 328–​331. Dyr, Jadwiga. “Akcja ratowania zborów kalwińskich na Litwie.” OiRwP 17 (1972): 191–​206. Dziembowski, Piotr. “Z dziejów kościoła ewangelicko-​reformowanego w Orzeszkowie.” Gens (2007/​2008): 107–​120. Dzięcielski, Marek. Aktywność społeczno-​polityczna szlachty pogranicza lęborskiego. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2009. Dzięgielewski, Jerzy. “Zygmunt Niszczycki (zm. 1621)”. PSB, vol. 23 (1978): 139–​140. Faber, Walther. Die polnische Sprache im Danziger Schul-​und Kirchenwesen von der Reformation bis zum Weltkrieg. Danzig:, 1930. Frick, Daniel. Kith, Kin, and Neighbors. Communities and Confessions in Seventeenth Century Wilno. Cornell University Press, 2013. Frick, Daniel. Wilnianie: Żywoty siedemnastowieczne. Warszawa: Duo Studio, 2007. Friedrich, Karin. The Other Prussia. Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569–​1772. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Frost, Robert. The Oxford History of Poland-​Lithuania, vol. I: The making of the Polish-​ Lithuanian Union 1385–​1569. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Glemma, Tadeusz. Stosunki kościelne w Toruniu w stuleciu XVI i XVII na tle dziejów kościelnych Prus Królewskich. Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, 1934. Głąb, Zbigniew. Socjotopografia Lutomierska (XIII–​XVIII wiek). Łódź: Księży Młyn Dom Wydawniczy, 2017. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Bełżyce w reformacyjnym tyglu.” In Studia z dziejów Bełżyc, eds. Kazimierz Spaleniec and Maria Walczak-​Gruner, 59–​71. Bełżyce, 2006. Gmiterek, Henryk. Bracia czescy a kalwini w Rzeczypospolitej. Połowa XVI—​połowa XVII wieku. Studium porównawcze. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie Skłodowskiej, Wydz. Humanistyczny, 1987. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Duchowni Jednoty Braci Czeskich w zborach kalwińskich Małopolski i Litwy w pierwszej połowie XVII. Wieku.” Historica. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultas philosophica (Historica Sborník prací historických) 31(2002): 157–​164.

294 Bibliography Gmiterek, Henryk. “Franciszek Stankar (1501–​1574).” PSB, vol. 42 (2003): 158–​163. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Franciszek Stankar Młodszy (1562–​1621).” PSB, vol. 42 (2003): 163–​164. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Jan Łaski a problem unii kalwinistów małopolskich z braćmi czeskimi w XVI wieku.” In Jan Łaski 1499–​1560. W pięćsetlecie urodzin, eds. Wojciech Kriegseisen and Piotr Salwa, 27–​38. Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2001. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Jan Rybiński (1595–​1638).” PSB, 33 (1993): 331–​332. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Jerzy Słupecki (ok.1615–​1663).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000): 107–​109. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Maciej Rybiński (1566–​1612).” PSB, 33 (1993): 338–​340. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Problemy unifikacji liturgii braci czeskich i kalwinów w Rzeczpospolitej XVI–​XVII w.” Annales universitatis Mariae Curie-​Skłodowska, 40, sectio F (1985): 93–​116. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Szymon Teofil Turnowski w obronie zgody sandomierskiej.” Annales UMSC, sec. F, 31 (1976): 13–​40. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Tumult wyznaniowy w Lublinie w 1633 roku.” OiRwP 50 (2006): 157–​167. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Utrata Ostroroga i zabiegi o utworzenie nowego ośrodka Braci Czeskich w Obrzycku.” OiRwP 23 (1978): 103–​121. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Włodawa w dziejach reformacji i kultury staropolskiej.” In Dzieje Włodawy, eds. Edward Olszewski and Ryszard Szczygieł, 58–​ 65. Lublin–​ Włodawa: Wydawnictwo, 1991. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Wymiana duchownych i nauczycieli pomiędzy Kościołem braci czeskich i kalwińskim w Rzeczypospolitej do połowy XVII wieku: z dziejów wzajemnych stosunków.” Rocznik Lubelski 23–​24 (1981–​1982): 47–​64. Gmiterek, Henryk. “Zbigniew Słupecki (zm. 1594).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000): 119–​120. Gorczyca, Krzysztof. Żychlin pod Koninem. Dzieje wsi i zboru. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 1997. Górska, Halina, Lech Szczucki, and Krystyna Wilczewska, eds. Cztery Broszury Polemiczne z początku XVII wieku. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1958. Grabowski, Tadeusz. “Marcin Gracjan Giertich (1568–​1629).” PSB, vol. 7 (1948/​1958): 405. Grużewski, Bolesław. Kościół ewangelicko-​reformowany w Kielmach. Warszawa: Rubiszewski i Wrotnowski, 1912. Grzybowski, Stanisław and Franciszek Mincer. “Samuel Łaski (po 1553–​1611).” PSB, vol. 18 (1973): 250–​253. Guldon, Zenon. “Stefan Czarniecki a mniejszości etniczne i wyznaniowe w Polsce.” In Stefan Czarniecki:  żołnierz-​obywatel-​polityk, ed. Waldemar Kowalski, 86–​110. Kielce: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1999. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek and Halina Kowalska. “Piotr Myszkowski (ok. 1510–​1591).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 382–​390.

Bibliography

295

Haratym, Andrzej. “Czarnieccy w XVII wieku.” In Stefan Czarniecki: żołnierz-​obywatel-​ polityk ed. Waldemar Kowalski, 159–​ 196. Kielce:  Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1999. Hartleb, Kazimierz. Stosunek hetmana Tarnowskiego do reformy kościoła w XVI wieku i jej przedstawicieli. KH 26 (1912): 249–​292. Heitzman, Irena. “Piotr Gorajski (zm.1619).” PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960): 283–​285. Heitzman, Irena. “Zbigniew Gorajski (1590–​1655).” PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960): 285–​288. Herbst, Stanisław. “Władysław Dorohostajski (1611–​1638).” PSB, vol. 5 (1939–​1946): 335. Hillebrand, Hans J., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Historia Polski w Liczbach. GUS, vol. 1. Warszawa, 2003. Jelińska, Joanna. “Sarmacki” wizerunek szlachcica-​ewangelika w Postylli Krzysztofa Kraińskiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 1995. Jordt Jørgensen, Kai Eduard. Ökumenische Bestrebungen unter den polnischen Protestanten bis zum Jahre 1645. Køpenhavn: Fr. Bagges Kgl. Hofbogtrykkeri, 1943. Jurek, Tomasz. “Jan Świdwa Szamotulski (1 poł XVI w.—​1580/​1581).” PSB, vol. 46 (2009/​ 2010): 571–​572. Jurzak, Bartłomiej. “Chłopi-​kalwini. Protestancka społeczność wsi Kozy od XVI do XIX wieku.” In Reformacja z perspektywy Bielska i Białej, eds. A. Banot, E. Gajewska & T. Markiewka, 114–​130. Bielsko–​Biała: Ośrodek Wydawniczy Augustana, 2018. Jurzak, Bartłomiej. “Ks. Andrzej Herman z Kóz (ok. 1581–​1630). Chłopski kaznodzieja krakowskich ewangelików.” In Reformacja w Krakowie (XVI–​XVII wiek). Materiały z sesji naukowej 6 maja 2017 roku, Editors?, 129–​138. Kraków: Towarzystwo Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa, 2018. Jarczykowa, Mariola. “Listy dedykacyjne Krzysztofa Kraińskiego.” In Spadkobiercy. Ewangelicy w Lublinie i na Lubelszczyźnie. Historia, kultura, ekonomia, literatura, Editor?, 373–​383. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, 2017. Jobert, Ambroise. De Luther a Mohila. La Pologne dans la crise de la Chrétienté 1517–​1648. Paris: Institut d’Études slaves, 1974. B.J.K. [Aleksander Maryjański]. Wspomnienia o Słucku. Gniezno:  Księgarnia Jana Wiśniewskiego, 1905. Kallenbach, Józef. Pamiętnik Jana Golliusza, mieszczanina polskiego (1650–​1653). Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce, VII, 1892. Kalwin, Jan. O zwierzchności świeckiej. Opr. W. Kriegseisen. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2009. Kamiński, Adam. “Zbór w Marcyporębie.” RwP 11 (1948/​52): 43–​55. Kamiński, Adam. “Spytek Wawrzyniec Jordan (1518–​1568)”. RwP 11 (1965): 282–​283. Kaniewska, Irena. “Hieronim Ossoliński (zm. między 1575 a 1576).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 396–​399. Kaniewska, Irena. “Jakub Sienieński (1568–​1639).” PSB, vol. 37 (1996): 174–​179.

296 Bibliography Kaniewska, Irena. “Krzysztof Sienieński (zm. po 1627).” vol. 37 (1996): 189–​190. Kaniewska, Irena. “Prokop Sieniawski (zm. 1596).” PSB, vol. 37 (1996): 145–​146. Kaniewska, Irena. “Rafał Sieniawski (zm. 1592).” PSB, vol. 37 (1996): 148–​149. Kaniewska, Irena. “Stanisław Szafraniec (1530/​31–​1598).” PSB, vol. 46 (2009): 471–​479. Karant-​Nunn, Susan. “The Reformation of Liturgy” In The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, ed. Ulinka Rublack, 409–​430. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Karpluk, Maria Jan Pirożyński. “ ‘O nieuwiarowaniu śmierci’—​rękopiśmienna relacja świadka ostatnich dni Elżbiety z Szydłowieckich Radziwiłłowej (4–​20 VI 1562).” Miscellanea staropolskie 6 (1990): 65–​91. Karwowski, Stanisław. “Leszczyńscy herbu Wieniawa.” Miesięcznik Heraldyczny 8 (1915): 165–​171. Kawecka-​Gryczowa, Alodia. “Jakób Sylvius a rozłam w zborze małopolskim.” RwP 9–​10 (1937–​1939): 28–​63. Kawecka-​Gryczowa, Alodia. “Kancjonały Protestanckie na Litwie.” RwP 4 (1926): 126–​138. Kempa, Tomasz. Konflikty wyznaniowe w Wilnie od początku reformacji do końca XVII wieku. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Adam Marszałek, 2016. Kempa, Tomasz. “Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski wobec katolicyzmu i wyznań protestanckich.” OiRwP 40 (1996): 17–​36. Kempa, Tomasz. Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł “Sierotka” (1549–​1616) wojewoda wileński. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2000. Kerstan, Eugen Gustav. Die evangelische Kirche des Stadt und Landkreises Elbing von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart. Elbing: 1917. Kicińska, Urszula. “Pobożność szlachcianki w świetle polskich drukowanych mów pogrzebowych w XVII wieku.” Folia Historica Cracoviensia 18 (2012): 212–​237. Kicińska, Urszula. Wzorzec szlachcianki w polskich drukowanych oracjach pogrzebowych XVII wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2013. Kiec, Olgierd. Historia Protestantyzmu w Poznaniu od XVI do XXI wieku. Poznań: Fundacja Instytut Kultury Popularnej, 2015. Kiedroń, Stefan. “Jan Makowski (1588–​1644): Polski teolog we fryzyjskim Franekerze.” OiRwP 40 (1996): 37–​52. Kiryk, Feliks. “Zbigniew Sienieński (zm. po 1567).” PSB, vol. 37 (1996): 192–​193. Kizik, Edmund. “Prawo i administracja kościoła luterańskiego w Gdańsku i na terytorium wiejskim miasta w XVI–​XVIII wieku.” In Gdańsk Protestancki w epoce nowożytnej. W 500 lecie wystąpienia Marcina Lutra, 111–​124. Gdańsk: Muzeum Narodowe w Gdańsku, 2017. Klarner, Szymon. “Sprawy o czary w urzędach Bełżyckich w wiekach XVI–​XVIII. Z aktów urzędów radzieckiego i wójtowskiego miasta Bełżyc.” Wisła 16 (1902): 467–​469. Klemp, Aleksander. Protestanci w dobrach prywatnych w Prusach Królewskich od drugiej połowy XVII do drugiej połowy XVIII wieku. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1994.

Bibliography

297

Klint, Paweł, ed. Testamenty szlacheckie z ksiąg grodzkich wielkopolskich z lat 1631–​1655. Poznań–​Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Historyczne, 2008. Kłaczewski, Witold. “Władysław Rey (zm. 1682).” PSB, vol. 31 (1988): 205–​210. Kłaczewski, Witold. “Adam Suchodolski (zm.1656).” PSB, vol. 45 (2008): 264–​265. Knoll, Paul. “Poland.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, vol. 3, ed. Hans J. Hillebrand. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Konarski, Szymon. Szlachta Kalwińska w Polsce. Warszawa: Antykwarjat K. Fiszlera i Syna, 1936. Korzo, Margita. “Jeszcze raz w sprawie nieznanego tłumaczenia Jana Kalwina w Polsce.” OiRwP 56 (2012): 192–​201. Korzo, Margita. “W sprawie jednego z XVI wiecznych katechizmów kalwińskich w Rzeczpospolitej.” OiRwP 51 (2007):177–​198. Kosman, Marceli. Protestanci i kontrreformacja. Z dziejów tolerancji w Rzeczpospolitej w XVI–​XVIII wieku. Wrocław–​Warszawa–​Kraków–​Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1978. Kossowski, Aleksander. Protestantyzm w Lublinie i w lubelskiem w XVI w XVII wieku. Lublin: Dom Książki Polskiej, 1933. Kościelak, Sławomir. “Wolność wyznaniowa w Gdańsku w XVI–​XVII wieku.” In Protestantyzm i Protestanci na Pomorzu, 95–​122. Gdańsk–​Koszalin: Muzeum Narodowe w Gdańsku, 1997. Kościelak, Sławomir. “Dzieje wyznaniowe Gdańska od XVI do początku XIX wieku,” in. In Gdańsk Protestancki w epoce nowożytnej. W 500 lecie wystąpienia Marcina Lutra, 64–​91. Gdańsk: Muzeum Narodowe w Gdańsku, 2017. Kot, Stanisław. “Jan Drohojowski (ok. 1505–​1557).” PSB, vol. 5 (1939/​1946): 380–​382. Kot, Stanisław. “Jana Tarnowskiego zerwanie z Kalwinem.” RwP 1 (1921): 61–​67. Kot, Stanisław. “Słupeccy w ruchu reformacyjnym.” In Hugo Grotius a Polska. W 300 lecie dzieła o prawie wojny i pokoju, Kot Stanisław, 25–​41. Kraków: Krakowska spółka wydawnicza, 1926. Kot, Stanisław. Szkolnictwo parafialne w Małopolsce. Lwów:  Nakładem Krajowego związku nauczycielstwa ludowego, 1912. Kowalska, Halina. “Andrzej Leszczyński (ok.1606–​1651).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 103–​104. Kowalska, Halina. Działalność reformatorska Jana Łaskiego w Polsce 1556–​ 1560, Wrocław–​Warszawa–​Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1969. Kowalska, Halina. “Aleksander Ostrogski (1570–​1603).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 480. Kowalska, Halina. “Barbara Słupecka (ok.1582–​1652).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000): 101–​102. Kowalska, Halina. “Feliks Słupecki (ok.1571–​1616).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000): 102–​107. Kowalska, Halina. “Leonard Słończewski (zm. 1562).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000): 30–​34. Kowalska, Halina. “Mikołaj Mielecki (zm.1585).” PSB, vol. 20 (1975): 759–​765. Kowalska, Halina. “Mikołaj Oleśnicki (zm.1556/​1557).” PSB, vol. 23 (1978): 768–​771. Kowalska, Halina. “Stanisław Lutomirski (ok.1520–​1575).” PSB, vol. 18 (1973): 144–​146. Kowalska, Halina. “Stanisław Myszkowski (zm. 1570).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 394–​399.

298 Bibliography Kowalska, Halina. “Stanisław Słupecki (zm. 1575).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999–​2000): 115–​119. Kowalska, Halina. “Stanisław Szafraniec z Pieskowej Skały.” OiRwP 3 (1959): 99–​131. Kowalska, Halina. “Władysław Przyjemski (ok. 1571–​1627).” PSB, vol. 29 (1986): 188–​189. Kowalska, Halina. “Zygmunt Myszkowski (zm. 1577).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 403–​404. Kowalkowski, Jacek and Wiesław Nowosad, eds. Testamenty szlachty Prus Królewskich z XVII wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2013. Kowalska-​Kossobudzka, Halina. “Wpływ Jana Łaskiego na kształtowanie się reformacyjnego Kościoła w Małopolsce.” In Jan Łaski 1499–​1560. W pięćsetlecie urodzin, eds. W. Kriegseisen and P. Salwa, 15–​26. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2001. Kowalska, Halina and Janusz Sikorski. “Stanisław Sarnicki (1532–​1597).” PSB, vol. 35 (1994): 217–​223. Kowalski, Waldemar. “Change in Continuity: Post-​Tridentine Rural and Township Parish Life in the Cracow Diocese.” Sixteenth Century Journal 35.3 (2004): 689–​715. Kowalski, Waldemar. “Chrzest jako inicjacja do życia w Kościele oraz odpowiedzialność rodziców za edukacje religijna dzieci w świetle wybranych polskich przewodników katechezy i liturgii drugiej połowy XVI wieku.” In Dom, codzienność i święto: Ceremonie i tradycje rodzinne. Studia historyczno-​antropologiczne, eds. B. Popiołek, A. Chłosta-​Sikorska, and M. Gadocha. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego, 2018. Kowalski, Waldemar. “From the ‘Land of Diverse Sects’ to National Religion: Converts to Catholicism and Reformed Franciscans in Early Modern Poland.” Church History 70 (2001): 482–​526. Kowalski, Waldemar. The Great Immigration. Scots in Cracow and Little Poland circa 1500–​1600. Leiden–​Boston: Brill, 2016. Kowalski, Waldemar.“Krakowski drukarz Stanisław Murmelius i jego księgozbiór (1571).” OiRwP 62 (2018): 5–​45. Kowalski, Waldemar. “The placement of urbanized Scots in the Polish Crown during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” In Scottish Communities Abroad in the Early Modern Period, eds. A. Grosjean & S. Murdoch, 52–​103. Leiden–​Boston: Brill Publishing, 2005. Kowalski, Waldemar. “Stopnicki rejestr konwertytów XVII–​XIX w.” Nasza Przeszłość 76 (1991): 193–​294. Kowalski, Waldemar. “Zarys dziejów Chmielnika w czasach przedrozbiorowych.” Almanach Historyczny 1 (1999): 63–​76. Krasny, Piotr. “Zbór kalwiński w Oksie przyczynek do badań nad formą centralną w polskiej architekturze sakralnej wieku XVI.” In Magistro et Amico amici discipulique. Lechowi Kalinowskiemu w osiemdziesięciolecie urodzin, Ed. J. Gadomski and W. Bulsza, 257–​269. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2002. Krause, Heinz. “Das Geistliche Ministerium in Thorn.” Westpreussen Jarbuch 39 (1989): 86–​90.

Bibliography

299

Kriegseisen, Jacek. “Kartusze trumienne rodziny von Somnitz w Charbrowie. Przyczynek do nowożytnej kultury funeralnej.” Porta Aurea 7–​8 (2009): 111–​133. Kriegseisen, Wojciech. “Autonomia jednostki a wolność sumienia. Problem konwersji w nowożytnej Rzeczpospolitej.” In Autonomia jednostki w Europie i Polsce: od XVII do XX wieku, ed. W. Mędrzecki, 25–​44. Warszawa: Instytut Historii PAN, 2011. Kriegseisen, Wojciech. “Książka i biblioteki w kulturze ewangelików polskich w XVII i XVIII w.” In Z badań nad polskimi księgozbiorami historycznymi, vol. 13:  Kolekcje wyznaniowe, ed. B. Bieńkowska, 5–​40, Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 1992. Kriegseisen, Wojciech. “Miłosierdzie czy opieka społeczna? Działalność opiekuńcza w Jednocie ewangelicko-​reformowanej Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVIII wieku.” In Charitas. Miłosierdzie i opieka społeczna w ideologii, normach postępowania i praktyce społeczności wyznaniowych w Rzeczpospolitej XVI–​XVIII wieku, ed. U. Augustyniak and A. Karpiński, 115–​130. Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2001. Kriegseisen, Wojciech. Stosunki wyznaniowe w relacjach państwo–​kościół między reformacją a oświeceniem. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2010. Kupisz, Dariusz. Zbigniew Gorajski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2000. Kuźmina, Dariusz. Katechizmy w Rzeczypospolitej w XVI i początku XVII wieku. Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie Bibliotekarzy Polskich, 2002. Latosiński, Józef. Monografia miasteczka Wilamowic na podstawie źródeł autentycznych. Kraków: 1910. Lehman, Jerzy. Konfesja Sandomierska na tle innych konfesji w Polsce w XVI wieku. Warszawa: W. Mietke, 1937. Leitgeber, Sławomir. “Piotr Potulicki (zm.1606).” PSB, vol. 28 (1984): 252–​255. Lenczewski, Tomasz. Russoccy herbu Zadora. Zarys monografii rodu. Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo DiG, 2005. Lepszy, Kazimierz. “Andrzej Firlej (zm.1585).” PSB, vol. 6 (1948): 474–​475. Lepszy, Kazimierz. “Andrzej Firlej (zm. 1609).” PSB, vol. 6 (1948): 475–​476. Lepszy, Kazimierz. “Jan Dulski (zm. 1590).” PSB, vol. 5 (1939–​1946): 461–​462. Lepszy, Kazimierz. “Mikołaj Firlej (zm.1588).” PSB, 7 (1948–​1958): 10–​12. Lepszy, Kazimierz. “Mikołaj Firlej (zm. 1601).” PSB, vol. 7 (1948–​1958): 12–​15. Lepszy, Kazimierz. “Stanisław Gostomski (zm.1598).” PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960): 366–​367. Leszczyński, Rafał. “Anna Memorata (ok.1612–​po 1644).” PSB, vol. 20 (1975): 419–​420. Letters relating to the mission of Sir Thomas Roe to Gustavus Adolphus, 1629–​1630. ed. S. R. Gardiner Camden Society, 1875. Lewicka-​Kamińska, Anna. “Melchior Krupka (ok.1490–​1582).” PSB, vol. 15 (1970): 414–​415. Liedke, Marzena. “Bezowocne starania. Korespondencja Jana Kalwina z Zygmuntem II Augustem, Jakubem Uchańskim, Janem Tarnowskim i Mikołajem Radziwiłłem Czarnym.” In Ewangelicyzm reformowany w Pierwszej Rzeczpospolitej. Dialog z

300 Bibliography Europą i wybory aksjologiczne w świetle literatury i piśmiennictwa XVI–​XVII wieku, ed. D. Chemperek, 17–​ 56. Warszawa:  Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2015. Liedke, Marzena. Od prawosławia do katolicyzmu. Ruscy możni i szlachta Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego wobec wyznań reformacyjnych. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2004. Lubieniecki, Stanisław. History of the Polish Reformation: and nine related documents. Edited by George H. Williams. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Lukšaitė, Ingė. “Die reformatorischen Kirchen Litauens bis 1795.” In Die reformatorischen Kirchen Litauens, ed. A. Hermann, 19–​136. Erlangen:  Martin-​Luther-​ Verlag, 1998. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Albrycht Radziwiłł (1558–​1592).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 135–​140. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Jerzy Radziwiłł (1578–​1613).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 234–​236. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Jerzy Sokoliński (zm.1606).” PSB, vol. 40 (2000): 39–​42. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Krzysztof Radziwiłł zwany Piorunem (1547–​1603).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 264–​276. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Lew Sapieha (1557–​1633).” PSB, vol. 35 (1994): 84–​104. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Malcher Snowski (zm. 1587).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999): 408–​410. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł zwany Sierotką (1549–​1616).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 349–​361. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Mikołaj Radziwiłł (ok. 1546–​1589).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 347–​349. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Mikołaj Radziwiłł zwany Czarnym (1515–​ 1565).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 335–​347. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Mikołaj Radziwiłł zwany Rudym (1512–​ 1584).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 321–​335. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Paweł Sokoliński (zm. ok. 1575).” PBS, vol. 40 (2000): 49–​50. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Skład wyznaniowy senatorów świeckich Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego za panowania Wazów.” PH 68 (1977): 425–​445. Lulewicz, Henryk. “Stanisław Radziwiłł (1559–​1599).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 363–​367. Łoziński, Władysław. Prawem i lewem. Obyczaje na Czerwonej Rusi w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Iskry, 2005. Łukaszewicz, Józef. Dzieje kościołów wyznania helweckiego w dawnej Małej Polsce. Poznań: J.K. Żupański, 1853. Łukaszewicz, Józef. Dzieje wyznania helweckiego w Litwie, vol. 1–​2. Poznań: Drukarnia Orędownika na Grabarach, 1842–​1843. Łukaszewicz, Józef. O kościołach braci czeskich w dawnej Wielkiejpolsce. Poznań: Drukarnia Karola Pompejusza, 1835. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation. London: Penguin, 2003. Machaj, Dawid. “Zawsze wierny? Sytuacja wyznaniowa w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XVI i XVII wieku.” OiRwP 59 (2015): 95–​135.

Bibliography

301

Maciuszko, Janusz. Ewangelicka postyllografia polska XVI–​XVII wieku. Charakterystyka—​ analiza porównawcza—​recepcja. Warszawa:  Chrześcijańska Akademia Teologiczna, 1987. Maciuszko, Janusz. “Poglądy religijne Mikołaja Reja.” In Mikołaj Rej z Nagłowic. W pięćsetną rocznicę urodzin, ed. Waldermar Kowalski, 287–​308. Kielce: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 2005. Mackiewicz, Stanisław. Dom Radziwiłłów. Warszawa: Czytelnik, 1990. Majewski, Wacław. “Samuel Leszczyński (1637–​1676).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 143–​144. Malina, Adam. Ewangelickie tradycje Hołdunowa. Katowice:  Dom Wydawniczy i Księgarski Didache, 1994. Maliszewski, Kazimierz. “Stosunki religijne w Toruniu w latach 1548–​1660.” In Historia Torunia, Vol. 2, ed. M. Biskup, 270–​276. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, 1994. Małłek, Janusz. “O Piotrze Artomiuszu, pastorze NMP w Toruniu i jego twórczości.” Linguistica Copernicana 8 (2012): 37–​50. Małłek, Janusz. “Reformacja i Protestantyzm w Toruniu w latach 1521–​1817.” In Reformacja w Toruniu. Wpływ kultury ewangelickiej na rozwój miasta. Katalog wystawy w Muzeum Okręgowym w Toruniu, 13–​29. Toruń: Wydawnictwo umk, 2017. “Wojciech Marszewski (zm. ok. 1573).” PSB, vol. 20 (1975): 76–​77. Markiewicz, Jerzy, Ryszard Szczygieł, and Wiesław Śladkowski. Dzieje Biłgoraja. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie, 1985. Mączak, Antoni, Henryk Samsonowicz, Andrzej Szwarc, and Jerzy Tomaszewski. Od plemion do Rzeczpospolitej. Naród, państwo, terytorium w dziejach Polski. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza, 1996. Merczyng, Henryk. Rejowie z Nagłowic jako członkowie Polskiego Kościoła Ewangelickiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2005. Merczyng, Henryk. Zbory i senatorowie protestanccy w dawnej Rzeczpospolitej. Warszawa: Druk Aleskandra Ginsa, 1905. Miller, James. “The Origins of Polish Arianism.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 229–​256. Mokrzecki, Lech. “Jerzy Pauli (1586–​1650).” PSB, vol. 25 (1980): 344. Mokrzecki, Lech. “Szkic z dziejów Gdańskiego Gimnazjum Akademickiego.” Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 2 (2008): 7–​26. Muczkowski, Józef Jakub. “Erazm Czeczotka-​Tłokiński (zm. 1587).” PSB, vol. 4 (1938): 317–​318. Müller, Michael G. “Między niemieckim konfesjonalizmem a polską tolerancją. Konflikty wyznaniowe między luteranami a ewangelikami reformowanymi w Gdańsku w drugiej połowie XVI wieku.” In Gdańsk protestancki w epoce nowożytnej. W 500-​lecie wystąpienia Marcina Lutra, eds. E. Kizik and S. Kościelak, vol. 1., 92–​109. Gdańsk: Muzeum Narodowe w Gdańsku, 2017.

302 Bibliography Müller, Michael G. Zweite Reformation und städtische Autonomie im Königlichen Preußen. Danzig, Elbing und Thorn in der Epoche der Konfessionalisierung (1557–​ 1660). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1997. Müller, Wiesław. “Jerzy Radziwiłł (1556–​1600).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 229–​234. Nadolski, Bronisław. “Bartłomiej Keckermann (1572–​ 1609).” PSB, vol. 12 (1966/​ 1967): 322–​323. Nagielski, Mirosław. “Aleksander Słuszka (ok.1580–​1647).” PSB, vol. 39 (1999): 134–​137. Niesiecki, Kasper. Herbarz Polski. Vol. 10. Lipsk: 1845. Noga, Zdzisław. “Krakowska Rada miejska a reformacja.” In Reformacja w Krakowie (XVI–​XVII w.). Materiały z sesji naukowej 6 maja 2017, 43–​57. Kraków: 2018. Nowak, Zbigniew. “Pankracy Klemme (ok.1475–​1546).” PSB, vol. 12 (1966–​67): 603–​604. Nowosad, Wiesław and Jacek Kowalkowski, eds. Testamenty szlachty Prus Królewskich z XVIII wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2016. Pańczak, Alojzy. “Działalność rekatolicyzacyjna wschowskich bernardynów.” In Ziemia Wschowska w czasach starosty Hieronima Radomickiego, eds. P. Klint, M. Małkus and K. Szymańska, 313–​ 335. Wschowa–​ Leszno:  Stowarzyszenie Kultury Ziemi Wschowskiej-​Muzeum Okręgowe w Lesznie, 2009. Pawelec, Mariusz. Bartłomiej Bythner starszy (ok.1559–​1629). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2008. Pawelec, Mariusz.“Między konfesjonalizmem a irenizmem. Stosunki pomiędzy Kościołami protestanckimi w drugiej ćwierci XVII w. na obszarze ziemie wschowskiej.” In Ziemia Wschowska w czasach starosty Hieronima Radomickiego, eds. P. Klint, M. Małkus and K. Szymańska, 165–​177. Wschowa–​Leszno: Stowarzyszenie Kultury Ziemi Wschowskiej-​Muzeum Okręgowe w Lesznie, 2009. Pawelec, Mariusz.“Szlachecki patronat wobec kalwińskiego zboru w Kozach w XVI–​ XVII wieku.” In Mikołaj Rej i dziedzictwo reformacji w Polsce, ed. B. Tondera, 113–​125. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WiR Partner, 2006. Pawlak, Marian. “Jan Mylius (1557–​1630).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 354–​355. Pawlak, Marian. Reformacja i kontrreformacja w Elblągu w XVI i XVII wieku. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej, 1994. Pawłowska, Jadwiga. “Zabiegi Hieronima Radomickiego o powrót wschowskich bernardynów do Wschowy w świetle ich kroniki.” In Ziemia Wschowska w czasach starosty Hieronima Radomickiego, eds. P. Klint, M. Małkus and K. Szymańska, 363–​367. Wschowa–​Leszno: Stowarzyszenie Kultury Ziemi Wschowskiej-​Muzeum Okręgowe w Lesznie, 2009. Pelczar, Marian. “Zygmunt Guldenstern (1598–​1666).” PSB, vol. 9 (1960/​1961): 141–​142. Petkunas, Darius. “The Consensus of Sandomierz: An early Attempt to Create a Unified Protestant Church in the sixteenth Century Poland and Lithuania.” Columbia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009): 317–​346.

Bibliography

303

Petkunas, Darius. Holy communion Rites in the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed Agendas of the sixteenth and early seventeenth Centuries. Klaipeda: 2007. Pielas, Jerzy. Oleśniccy herbu Dębno w XVI–​XVII wieku. Studium z dziejów zamożnej szlachty doby nowożytnej. Kielce:  Wydawnictwo Akademii Świętokrzyskiej im. Jana Kochanowskiego, 2007. Pierzyk, Zdzisław. “Stanisław Mateusz Stadnicki (zm.ok.1563).” PSB, vol. 51 (2002): 421–​425. Plewczyński, Marek. “Hieronim Sieniawski (1519–​1582).” PSB, vol. 37 (1997/​1998): 119–​122. Pociecha, Władysław. “Andrzej Bzicki (zm. 1567).” PSB, vol. 3 (1937): 185–​186. Podraza, Antoni. “Anzelm Gostomski (ok. 1508–​1588).” PSB, vol. 8 (1959–​1960): 362–​364. Pritzel, Erwin. Geschichte der Reformierten Gemeinde zu S Petri-​Pauli in Danzig: 1570–​ 1940. Danzig: 1940. Ptaszyński, Maciej. “Grzeczny dysydent? O pracy Dariusza M. Bryćko, The Irenic Calvinism of Daniel Kałaj (d. 1681). A study in the History and theology of the Polish-​ Lithuanian Reformation.” OiRwP 58 (2014): 177–​190. Ptaszyński, Maciej. “Jan Jerzy Szlichtyng (1597–​1658).” PSB, vol. 48 (2012–​2013): 390–​395. Ptaszyński, Maciej. “Jonasz Szlichtyng (1592–​1661).” PSB, vol. 48 (2012–​2013): 398–​402. Ptaszyński, Maciej. “O ustroju kościoła. Uwagi na marginesie edycji Akt synodów prowincjonalnych Jednoty Litewskiej 1626–​1627.” OiRwP 56 (2012): 203–​226. Ptaszyński, Maciej. “O znakach kościoła i ich znaczeniu. Polemika z Kazimierzem Bemem.” OiRwP 58 (2014): 153–​175. Ptaszyński, Maciej. “The Polish-​Lithuanian Commonwealth.” In Brill’s Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, eds. H. Louthan & G. Murdock, 40–​67. Leiden–​ Boston: Brill, 2015. Ptaszyński, Maciej. Reformacja w Polsce a dziedzictwo Erazma z Rotterdamu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2018. “Mikołaj Rey (1505–​1569)” (red). PSB, vol. 31 (1988): 196–​203. Rolska, Irena. Firlejowie Leopardzi. Studium nad patronatem i fundacjami artystycznymi w XVI–​XVII wieku. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2009. Rott, Dariusz. Bracia Czescy w dawnej Polsce. Katowice:  Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2002. Rucka, Iweta. “‘O wyklęciu albo wyłączeniu’—​słownictwo związane z karą ekskomuniki w kościołach reformowanych w drugiej połowie XVI i początku XVII wieku.” Slavia Occidentalis 53 (1996): 69–​86. Saar-​Kozłowska, Alicja. “Pomnik upamiętniający Annę z Leszczyńskich Potocką w kościele Wniebowzięcia Najświętszej Marii Panny w Toruniu.” Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 9 (2015): 38–​69. Sajkowski, Alojzy. “Bogusław Niezabitowski (zm.1739).” PSB, vol. 23 (1978): 97.

304 Bibliography Salomonowicz, Stanisław. “Dzieje wyznań i życia religijnego.” In Historia Torunia, vol. 2 part. iii, ed. M. Biskup, 395–​418. Toruń: tnt, Instytut Historii pan w Warszawie 1996. Salomonowicz, Stanisław. “Kultura umysłowa Torunia w dobie renesansu, reformacji i wczesnego baroku.” In Historia Torunia, Vol. 2 Part. ii, ed. M. Biskup, 169–​256. Toruń: tnt, Instytut Historii pan w Warszawie, 1994. Schilling, Heinz. “Die „Zweite Reformation” als Kategorie der Geschichtswissenschaft.” In Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland—​das Problem der „Zweiter Reformation“ W. Reinhard and H. Schilling, 387–​437. Gutersloh: Guterslocher Verlagshaus, 1986. Schramm, Gottfried. Der Polnische Adel und die Reformation 1548–​1607. Franz Steiner Verlag gmbh, Wiesbaden, 1965. Schramm, Gottfried. “Problem Reformacji w Warszawie w XVI wieku.” PH 54 (1963): 557–​569. Seredyka, Jan. “Jan Alfons Lacki (zm. 1646).” PSB, vol. 16 (1971): 406–​407. Seredyka, Jan. Księżniczka i chudopachołek. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 1995. Sipayłło, Maria. “Daniel Mikołajewski (1560–​1633).” PSB, vol. 21 (1976): 154–​156. Sipayłło, Maria. “Jan Teodoryk Potocki (ok.1608–​1664).” PSB, vol. 28 (1984): 28–​29. Sipayłło, Maria. “Materiały do dziejów zboru w Ostrorogu.” OiRwP 13 (1968): 169–​184. Sipayłło, Maria. “Piotr Artomiusz (1552–​1609).” PSB, vol. 1 (1935): 85–​86. Sipayłło, Maria. “Rafał Leszczyński (ok.1526–​1592).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 133–​135. Sipayłło, Maria. “Rafał Leszczyński (1579–​1636).” PSB, vol. 17 (1972): 135–​139. Sipayłło, Maria. “Stosunki Leszczyńskich z uniwersytetem bazylejskim.” OiRwP 8 (1963): 109–​122. Skwarowie, Marta and Marek Skwarowie. Życie i twórczość Jerzego Laetusa Weselskiego. Przyczynek do dziejów braci czeskich na tle związków Polski i Niderlandów w XVII wieku wraz z tekstem kazania pogrzebowego. Szczecin: Uniwersytet Szczeciński, 2004. Sławiński, Wojciech. Toruński Synod Generalny 1595 roku. Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2002. Sławoszewska, Maria. “Reinhold Krokowski (1536–​1599).” PSB, vol. 15 (1970): 316–​317. Sławoszewska, Maria. “Ernest Krokowski (1575–​1631).” PSB, vol. 15 (1970): 317–​318. Smolarek, Karolina. “Piotr Artomiusz i jego kancjonał toruński z końca XVI wieku.” Rocznik Toruński 41 (2014): 169–​186. Sobieski, Wacław. “Zabiegi Gdańszczan o polskiego kaznodzieję.” RwP 2 (1922): 296. Spicer, Andrew. Calvinist churches in modern Europe. Manchester–​New  York:  Manchester University Press, 2007. Springer, Michael S. Restoring Christ’s Church. John a Lasco and the Forma ac ratio. Aldershot-​Burlington: Ashgate, 2007. Sroczyński, Zbigniew. Żeleńscy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 1997.

Bibliography

305

Starke, Arnold. “Jan Bythner (1602–​1675).” PSB, vol. 3 (1937): 182–​183. Starke, Arnold. “Wiktoryn Bythner (1605?–​1670?).” PSB, vol. 3 (1937): 183–​184. Stępień, Paweł. “Bez złudzeń i bez pocieszenia—​Jan Andrzej Morsztyn wobec religii.” Pamiętnik Literacki 86 (1995): 25–​43. Szczotka, Stanisław. “Feliks Cruciger (zm. 1563).” PSB, vol. 4 (1938): 107–​109. Szczotka, Stanisław. “Paweł Gilowski (ok.1534–​1595).” PSB, vol. 7 (1948): 471. Szczucki, Lech. “Franciszek Jezierski (zm.ok.1616/​1617).” PSB, vol. 11 (1964/​1965): 200. Szczucki, Lech. “Jan Grzybowski (1571–​1641).” PSB, vol. 9 (1960/​1961): 106–​107. Szymańska, Kamila. “Książka w życiu leszczyńskich mieszczan w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku.” In Ziemia Wschowska w czasach starosty Hieronima Radomickiego, eds. P. Klint, M. Małkus, and K. Szymańska, 409–​429. Wschowa–​Leszno: Stowarzyszenie Kultury Ziemi Wschowskiej-​Muzeum Okręgowe w Lesznie, 2009. Śliż, Natalia. “Testament Piotra Kochlewskiego sędziego brzeskiego ziemskiego z 1646 roku.” Zapiski Historyczne 72 (2007): 91–​103. Taplin, Mark. The Italian Reformers and the Zurich Church, c.  1540–​1620. Aldershot-​ Burlington: Ashgate, 2003. Tazbir, Janusz. “Abraham Sieniuta (1587–​1632).” PSB, vol. 37 (1996): 195–​196. Tazbir, Janusz. “Jan Andrzej Morsztyn (1621–​1693).” PSB, vol. 21 (1976): 809–​814. Tazbir, Janusz. “Jan Kiszka (zm. 1592).” PSB, vol. 12 (1966–​67): 507–​508. Tazbir, Janusz. “Krzysztof Kraiński (1556–​1618).” PSB, vol. 15 (1970): 92–​93. Tazbir, Janusz. “Paweł Krzysztof Sieniuta (1589–​1640).” PSB, vol. 37 (1996): 196–​197. Tazbir, Janusz. “Piotr Sieniuta (1616–​1648).” PSB, vol. 37 (1996): 197–​199. Tazbir, Janusz. “Reformacja jako ruch umysłowy.” In Szlachta i teologowie. Studia z dziejów polskiej kontrreformacji, Janusz Tazbir, 31–​52. Warszawa:  Wiedza Powszechna, 1987. Tazbir, Janusz. Reformacja w Polsce. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza, 1993. Tazbir, Janusz. “Społeczeństwo wobec reformacji.” In Polska w epoce Odrodzenia, 331–​ 356. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 1986. Tazbir, Janusz. “Społeczny i terytorialny zasięg polskiej reformacji.” KH 82 (1975): 723–​ 735. Tazbir, Janusz. “Szlachta i teologowie.” In Państwo bez stosów i inne szkice, Janusz Tazbir, 50–​61. Kraków: Universitas, 2000. Ternes, Jerzy. “Przyczynki do genealogii Żółkiewskich w XVI wieku.” Rocznik Lubelskiego Towarzystwa Genealogicznego 4 (2012): 80–​91. Tomczak, Andrzej. Walenty Dembiński kanclerz egzekucji (ok. 1504–​1584). Toruń: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1963. Topolska, Maria. “Jakub Ostroróg (ok.1516–​1568).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 500–​502. Trawicka, Zofia. “Działalność polityczna i reformacyjna Piotra Kochlewskiego.” OiRwP 8 (1963): 125–​148. Trawicka, Zofia. “Piotr Kochlewski (zm. 1647).” PSB, vol. 13 (1967): 216–​217.

306 Bibliography Tworek, Stanisław. “David Mylius (1594–​1621).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 353. Tworek, Stanisław. Działalność oświatowo-​kulturalna kalwinizmu małopolskiego. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie, 1970. Tworek, Stanisław. “Gimnazjum kalwińskie prowincji małopolskiej w Bełżycach w połowie XVII wieku.” Annales UMCS, sectio F, 17 (1962): 155–​194. Tworek, Stanisław. “Jan Minwid (ok.1582–​1638).” PSB, vol. 21 (1976): 315–​316. Tworek, Stanisław. “Mikołaj Minwid (zm. 1688).” PSB, vol. 21 (1976): 316–​317. Tworek, Stanisław. “Jakub Mylius (1594–​1651).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 353. Tworek, Stanisław. “Paweł Bogusław Orzechowski (ok. 1626–​1694).” PSB, 24 (1979): 285–​286. Tworek, Stanisław. “Paweł Orzechowski (zm.1612).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 283–​284. Tworek, Stanisław. “Paweł Orzechowski młodszy (zm. 1632).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 284–​285. Tworek, Stanisław. “Programy nauczania i prawa gimnazjum kalwińskiego w Kiejdanach z lat 1629 i 1685.” OiRwP 15 (1970): 223–​236. Tworek, Stanisław. “Samuel Keszner (1613–​1678).” PSB, vol. 12 (1966/​1967): 355. Tworek, Stanisław. “Samuel Makowski (koniec XVI—​ poł. XVII w.).” PSB, vol. 19 (1974): 243–​244. Tworek, Stanisław. “Samuel Minwid (1602–​po 1654).” PSB, vol. 21 (1976): 317–​318. Tworek, Stanisław.“ ‘Starania o ujednolicenie’ obrządku kalwińskiego w Polsce w XVII wieku.” OiRwP 16 (1971): 117–​139. Tworek, Stanisław. “Teodor Bogusław Orzechowski (zm.1730).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 295–​296. Tworek, Stanisław. “Z zagadnień liczebności zborów kalwińskich na Litwie.” OiRwP 17 (1972): 207–​214. Tworek, Stanisław. “Z zagadnień organizacji zborów kalwińskich w Małopolsce w XVI–​ XVII wieku.” Rocznik Lubelski 8 (1965): 63–​75. Tync, Stanisław. “Wilhelm Gnapheus (zm. 1568).” PSB, vol.8 (1959/​1960): 137. Tyszkowski, Kazimierz. “Jan Abramowicz (zm. 1602).” PSB, vol. 1 (1935): 13. Tyszkowski, Kazimierz. “Przejście Lwa Sapiehy na Katolicyzm w 1586 r.” RwP 2 (1922): 198–​203. Ujma, Magdalena. “Wzorce osobowe synów kasztelana krakowskiego Marcina Zborowskiego (Z problematyki obyczajowości szlacheckiej w XVI wieku).” KLIO 18 (2011): 43–​74. Urban, Wacław. “Adam Pszonka (1608–​1677).” PSB, vol. 29 (1986): 283–​284. Urban, Wacław. “Adam Samuel Hartmanni (1627–​1691).” PSB, vol. 9 (1960–​1961): 298–​300. Urban, Wacław. “Akademia Krakowska w dobie Reformacji i wczesnej Kontrreformacji.” In Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–​1764, ed. Kazimierz Lepszy, 253–​307. Kraków: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964. Urban, Wacław. “Andrzej Herman (ok. 1581–​1630).” PSB, vol. 9 (1960/​1961): 463–​464.

Bibliography

307

Urban, Wacław. “Andrzej Węgierski (1600–​1649) jako kaznodzieja włodawski i jego związki z Czechami.” OiRwP 47 (2003): 173–​175. Urban, Wacław. Chłopi wobec reformacji w Małopolsce w drugiej połowie XVI wieku. Kraków: 1959. Urban, Wacław. Epizod Reformacyjny. Kraków: Publisher? 1998. Urban, Wacław. “Franciszek Płachta Seceminius (ok. 1560–​ 1634).” PSB, vol. 26 (1981): 763–​764. Urban, Wacław. “Heretycy parafii Mariackiej w Krakowie w 1568 r.” OiRwP 32 (1987): 167–​177. Urban, Wacław. “Jakub Pszonka (1562–​1622).” PSB, vol. 29 (1986): 284–​286. Urban, Wacław. “Mikołaj z Zakliczyna Jordan (ok. 1515–​1580).” PSB, vol. 11 (1965): 281–​282. Urban, Wacław. “Reformacja mieszczańska w dawnym powiecie bieckim.” OiRwP 6 (1961): 139–​174. Urban, Wacław. “Reformacja w Chęcińskiem.” In VII wieków Chęcin. Materiały sesji naukowej 24 V 1975, ed. Z. Guldon, 100–​103. Kielce: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Kielcach, Urząd Miasta i Gminy w Chęcinach, 1976. Urban, Wacław. “Reformacja w życiu wsi małopolskiej.” In Et Haec Facienda, et illa non omittenda. Profesor Wacław Urban w swoich dziełach wybranych, Author or Editor?, 25–​39. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2012. Urban, Wacław. “Reformacja we włoszczowskiem.” In Et Haec Facienda, et illa non omittenda. Profesor Wacław Urban w swoich dziełach wybranych, 301–​307. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2012. Urban, Wacław. “Reformacja wśród chłopów w Oświęcimskiem.” OiRwP 2 (1957): 151–​175. Urban, Wacław. “Rola braci Węgierskich w podtrzymywaniu protestantyzmu polskiego.” In Religie, edukacja, kultura. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana profesorowi Stanisławowi Litakowi, ed. M. Surdacki, 47–​51, Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2002. Urban, Wacław. “Sprawy kościelne na sejmach i sejmikach odbywanych w Małopolsce 1535–​1548.” Zeszyty Naukowe WSP w Opolu, Historia 46 (1988): 193–​201. Urban, Wacław. “Stancarus Francis.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Vol. 4, ed. Hans J. Hillebrand, 107–​108. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Urban, Wacław. “Tendencje reformacyjne wśród szlachty i innych świeckich (poza Krakowem).” In Et Haec Facienda, et illa non omittenda. Profesor Wacław Urban w swoich dziełach wybranych, 12–​24. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2012. Urban, Wacław. “Umiejętność pisania w Małopolsce w drugiej połowie XVI wieku.” PH 68 (1977): 231–​257. Urban, Wacław. “Z dziejów reformacji w dawnym powiecie kaliskim.” In Et Haec Facienda, et illa non omittenda. Profesor Wacław Urban w swoich dziełach wybranych, 279–​290. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2012,.

308 Bibliography Urban, Wacław. “Z dziejów reformacji w Wiślicy.” In Et Haec Facienda et illa non omittenda. Profesor Wacław Urban w swoich dziełach wybranych, 233–​246. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2012. Urzędnicy województwa sandomierskiego XVI–​XVIII wieku. Spisy. Ed. K. Chłapowski and A. Falinowska-​Gradowska, Kórnik: Biblioteka Kórnicka, 1993. Wajsblum, Marek. Ex regestro arianismi. Szkice z dziejów upadku protestantyzmu w Małopolsce. Kraków: Towarzystwo Badań Dziejów Reformacji w Polsce, 1937–​1948. Wajsblum, Marek. “Piotr Chrząstowski (zm.1686).” PSB, vol. 3 (1937): 474–​475. Wajsblum, Marek. “Stanisław Chrząstowski (zm. 1660).” PSB, vol. 3 (1937): 475–​476. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Andrzej Rej (ok. 1616–​ok.1664).” PSB, vol. 31 (1988): 186–​187. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Bogusław Radziwiłł (1620–​1669).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 161–​172. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Janusz Radziwiłł (1579–​1620).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 202–​208. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Janusz Radziwiłł (1612–​1655).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 208–​215. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Krzysztof Potocki (1600–​1675).” PSB, vol. 28 (1984): 85–​88. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Stanisław Kiszka (1584–​1626).” PSB, vol. 12 (1966–​1967): 517–​518. Wetter, Evelin. “ ‘On Sundays for the laity … we allow mass vestments, altars, candles to remain’: The Role of Pre-​Reformation Ecclesiastical Vestments in the Formation of Confessional, Corporate, and ‘National’ Identities.” In Lutheran Churches in Early Modern Europe, ed. A. Spicer, 165–​195. (City: Ashgate, 2012). Wijaczka, Jerzy. “Protestantyzm w regionie świętokrzyskim w XVI–​XVII wieku (ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem powiatu radomskiego).” In Ewangelicy w Radomiu i regionie (XVI–​XX w.). Studia i materiały, ed. J. Kłaczkow, 11–​31. Radom: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Technologii Eksploatacji-​Państwowy Instytut Badawczy w Radomiu, 2007. Wijaczka, Jerzy. “Reformacja w miastach prywatnych w Koronie w XVI wieku.” Roczniki Dziejów Społecznych i Gospodarczych 77 (2016): 379–​406. Wijaczka, Jerzy. “The Reformation in sixteenth-​century Poland:  a success story or a failure?.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 17 (2015): 9–​26. Wilbur, Earl M. A History of Unitarianism. Socinianism and its Antecedents. Boston: Beacon Press, 1945. Williams, George H. “Francis Stancaro’s Schismatic Reformed Church centered in Dubets’ko in Ruthenia 1559/​61–​1570.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3–​4 (1979–​ 1980): 931–​957. Winiarska, Izabela Maria. Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku na tle terminologii katolickiej. Warszawa:  Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2004. Winiarska, Izabela Maria. “Staropolskie ewangelickie katechizmy i kancjonały jako książki formacyjne.” In Ewangelicyzm reformowany w Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej: dialog z Europą i wybory aksjologiczne w świetle literatury i piśmiennictwa XVI–​XVII wieku, ed. D. Chemperek, 133–​169. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2015.

Bibliography

309

Wisłocki, Jerzy. “Zygmunt Grudziński (ok. 1572–​1653).” PSB, vol. 9 (1960/​1961): 49. Wisner, Henryk. Janusz Radziwiłł 1612–​1655. Wojewoda wileński, hetman wielki litewski. Warszawa: mada, 2000. Wisner, Henryk. “Krzysztof Radziwiłł (1585–​1640).” PSB, vol. 30 (1987): 276–​283. Wiśniewski, Jerzy. “Jan Pac (zm. 1610).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 698–​699. Włodarski, Józef. “Księga metrykalna zboru Braci Czeskich w Krokowej (1718–​1763) jako źródło historyczne.” Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 2 (2008): 88–​96. Wotschke, Theodor. Der Briefwechsel der Schweizer mit der Polen. Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachf, 1908. Wyczawski, Hieronim. “Mikołaj Pac (ok. 1527–​1585).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 736–​737. Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski (ok.1526–​ 1608).” PSB, vol. 24 (1979): 489–​496. Young, Dawid. Gdańskie Hymny Jakuba Gembickiego. Gdańsk–​Gniezno: Biblioteka Staropolska, 2014. Zachara, Maria, and Teresa Majewska-​Lancholc. “Instrukcja Krzysztofa II Radziwiłła dla syna Janusza.” OiRwP 16 (1971): 171–​184. Załęski, Stanisław. Jezuici w Polsce. Vol. 1–​4. Lwów: Druk. i nakł. Drukarni Ludowej, 1905. Zawadzki, Jarosław. “Anna z Radziwiłłów Kiszczyna, 2 voto Sadowska—​burzliwe losy dziedziczki fortuny.” In Władza i Prestiż. Magnateria Rzeczypospolitej w XVI–​XVII wieku, ed. Jerzy Urwanowicz, 381–​392. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2003. Żelewski, Roman. “Olbracht Łaski (1536–​1605).” PSB, vol. 18 (1973): 246–​250. Żelewski, Roman. “Piotr Myszkowski (ok. 1560–​1601).” PSB, vol. 22 (1977): 392–​393. Žirgulis, Rimantas. “The Scottish community in Kėdainiai c. 1630–​c. 1750.” In Scottish Communities Abroad in the Early Modern Period, eds. Alexia Grosjean and Steve Murdoch, 225–​245. Leiden–​Boston: Brill Publishing, 2005.

Name and Authors Index Abramowicz, family 169 Abramowicz, Elżbieta née Hornostaj 1 voto Drohojowska 156, 266–​267, 271 Abramowicz, Jan 73–​74 Aikenhead, Dawid 156 Albrecht I Hohenzollern, Duke of Prussia 17 Altwood, Craig D 23 Ampilas, Jan 116 Andrzej z Przasnysza (Prażmowski) 113, 226–​227, 233–​234 Anna Jagiellonka, Queen of Poland 232 Aram, family 125 Arndt, Paul 125, 127, 248–​250 Arnoldi, Nicolaus 142 Artomiusz, Piotr 119, 232, 248–​249 Asch, Ronald G 165 Asmańska, NN 174 Asmański, Szymon 174 Augustyniak, Urszula 3, 5, 7–​16, 39, 134, 143, 155–​156, 159–​161, 166, 175, 179, 181, 190, 227, 230, 260–​261, 264, 269, 272 Bagieńska, Elżbieta 218–​220, 271 Bajer, Peter Paul 11, 150, 156, 227, 229, 232, 236–​237, 243, 253, 270 Banach, Andrzej Kazimierz 173, 177–​178, 189 Baranowski, Andrzej 116–​117 Barbara Radziwiłłówna, Queen of Poland 19 Barian-​Rokicki, family 138–​139, 144–​145 Barłowska, Maria 134 Barthen van, Jacob 242 Barwiński, Edward 189 Barycz, Henryk 28, 31, 49, 139, 170 Baszanowski, Jan 247 Bazylik, Cyprian 260 Bełdowski, Jan 121 Bem, Kazimierz 45, 47, 95, 110, 210, 225, 230, 232, 267, 270–​271 Benedict, Paul 45, 87, 99, 161 Beza (de Beze), Theodor 28, 30 Bibrzycki, Kazimierz 168 Bidlo, Jaroslav 23, 87, 214 Biedrzycka, Agnieszka 31–​32 Bielecka, Janina 44 Birecki, Piotr 153

Biskupski, Jakub 99, 117–​118 Blandrata, George 30–​31, 34 Bobrownicki, family 112, 155, 285 Bobrownicka Anna née Zakrzewska 86, 110–​112 Bobrownicki, Jerzy 111–​112 Bobrownicki, Przecław 86, 99, 110–​112, 158 Bochmann, Johann 253 Bodniak, Stanisław 180 Bolognetti, Alberto 232 Bonar, family 169 Bonar, Jan 137, 227, 233 Bonar, Seweryn (d.1592) 235 Bonar, Seweryn 95, 108 Bondyra, Wiesław 179 Budka, Włodzimierz 207, 270 Budny, Szymon 73 Bolestraszycki, family 184 Bolestraszycki, Jan 184 Bolestraszycki, Krzysztof 184 Bolestraszycki, Piotr 184 Bolestraszycki, Samuel 147, 184 Bołtówna, Hanna –​see Jewłaszewska, Anna Borch, Jerzy 208 Borodzicz, Jan 103 Borysowski, NN 109 Botssackus, Johannes 246 Bottinger, Gerhard 256 Bronikowska, Helena née Gorzeńska  214–​215, 270 Brzeźnicki, Jan Konrad 254 Buczacka-​Tworowska, Anna (1553–​1590) née Radziwiłł 261 Buczacka-​Tworowska, Katarzyna see Potocka, Katarzyna Bullinger, Heinrich 29–​30 Burchardi, Franz 247 Burnett, Amy Nelson 97, 138, 279 Bużeńska, Anna née Potworowska 185 Bużeńska, Barbara née Myszkowska 181 Bużeński, Piotr 181 Byliński, Janusz 157 Bythner, Bartłomiej the Older 126, 158 Bythner, Bartłomiej the Younger 126 Bythner, family 125

Name and Authors Index Bythner, Jan 44, 80, 126–​127, 145–​146, 185, 255, 270 Bythner, Katarzyna 158 Bythner, Marcin 44, 126 Bythner, Wiktoryn 126 Bythner, Zachariasz 126 Bzicki, Andrzej 114, 210 Bzicki, Jan 114, 211 Calvin, John 28, 30–​32, 34​, 50–​51, 146, 166, 170, 172–​173 Catherine of Austria (Habsburg), Queen of Poland 167, 260 Cassius, family 125, 280 Cerekwicki, family 168 Cerekwicka, Jadwiga –​see Grudzińska, Jadwiga Chachaj, Marian 188, 277 Chandieu de la Roche, Anton 147 Cherner, Ewa 115, 126, 154, 156 Chłapowski, Dezydery 166, 264 Chłapowski, Krzysztof 185 Chmielnicki, Bogdan 9, 11–​12, 130, 143, 176, 283 Chodkiewicz, family 169–​171 Chodkiewicz, Anna –​see Korecka, Anna Chodkiewicz, Hieronim 170–​171 Chodkiewicz, Jan 170–​171, 184, 263 Chodkiewicz, Jerzy 260 Chodkiewicz, Krystyna née Zborowska 184, 263 Chodkiewicz, Zofia –​see Zofia Dorohostajska Chodowiecki, family 125 Chodowiecki, Jan Sereniusz 122, 251 Chrapowicki, Krzysztof 178–​179 Chryzostom, Samuel 121–​122 Chrząstowska, Aleksandra née Orzechowska 1 voto Gnojeńska 176, 271 Chrząstowski, Andrzej 92–​93, 99, 200, 201, 237 Chrząstowski, Benedykt 95 Chrząstowski, Cyryl 199 Chrząstowski, Piotr 176, 271 Chrząstowski, Stanisław 182–​183 Ciekliński, Dobiesław 191–​192 Cikowska, Elżbieta 108 Claudian (Klaudian) family 125 Claudinus, Mateusz 204 Clement viii, pope 170

311 Commendone, Giovanni Francesco 276 Constance of Austria (Habsburg), Queen of Poland 190 Cruciger (Krzyżak), Feliks 26–​27, 30–​31, 50–​52, 114, 166–​167, 202, 206, 214 Cynarski, Stanisław 129, 229 Cyring, Maciej 119 Czamer, Jakub 96 Czaplewski, Paweł 253, 264 Czapliński, Władysław 180, 190, 192, 262 Czamańska, Iwona 179 Czapnik, Marianna 139, 145 Czarniecka, Krystyna née Rzeszowska 190 Czarniecki, Krzysztof 190 Czarniecki, Stefan 11, 145 Czartoryska, Aleksandra née Wiśniowiecka 178–​179 Czartoryski, Jerzy 179 Czechowic, Marcin 73 Czeczotka, Erazm 234 Czema, Anna see Guldenstern Anna Czema, Fabian 156, 159, 253, 264 Czema, family 253–​254 Czema, Katarzyna née Leszczyńska 194, 253 Czema, Zofia née Radziwiłł 261 Czerny, Piotr 198 Czerwonka, Maciej 53 Czyż, Aleksandra 265 Czyż, Jan 146 Czyż, Renata 145, 147 Daniel Ślęzak 233 Dasyp, Mikołaj 115–​116, 133, 154 Dembińska, Anna –​see Szafraniec, Anna Dembińska Barbara née Gosławska 173 Dembińska Katarzyna –​see Rej, Katarzyna Dembiński, Waletny 168, 173 Dembiński, Stanisław 173, 228 Denhoff, family 189 Dewald, Jonathan 3 Derszniak, Aleksander 263 Dessaus, family 224 Dębicki, family 192 Dębicka, Krystyna 266 Dębicki, Marcjan 192 Dłuska, Agnieszka née Myszkowska 170 Dobrzański, Andrzej 42, 82 Drohojowski, Jan 114 Drohojowski, Jan (1898-​1911) 267, 271

312  Drohojowski, Maciej 96–​97, 121 Drohojowski, Samuel 266–​267 Dorohostajski, family 156, 169 Dorohostajska, Elżbieta née Samson-​ Podbereska 2 voto Tarnowska 181 Dorohostajska, Zofia –​see Sapieha, Zofia, Dorohostajska, Zofia née Chodkiewicz 263 Dorohostajska, Zofia née Radziwiłł 1 voto Chodkiewicz 158, 259–​260 Dorohostajski, Krzysztof 158, 263 Dorohostajski, Władysław 133, 181, 156 Drucki-​Sokoliński, family 169 Drucki-​Sokoliński, Jerzy 223 Drucki-​Sokoliński, Paweł 223 Drzewiecki, Jan 135 Dubas-​Urwanowicz, Ewa 34 Dulska, Elżbieta née Oleśnicka 174–​175 Dulski, Jan 174–​175, 182 Dury, John 107 Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz 37–​38, 45, 66, 87, 137, 176, 180, 187, 189, 194–​195 Dworzaczkowa, Janina 23–​24, 38, 44, 66, 70–​71, 84, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 127–​130, 132, 134, 136–​137, 141–​143, 145–​146, 149, 152, 154, 156, 167–​169, 181–​182, 185, 193, 195, 202, 206, 215–​216, 227, 250, 254–​255, 258, 265, 267–​268, 270, 275 Dybaś, Bogusław 143, 248 Dyr, Jadwiga 75 Dzeimbowski, Piotr 44 Dzięcielski, Marek 255–​256 Dzięgielewski, Jerzy 166 Eisenmenger, Michael 235 Elmslie, Urszula 270 Epenet, Barbara née Wiligantius 125 Epenet, Daniel 125 Epenet, Wacław 124 Faber, Walther 246 Fabritius, Jacob 243–​246 Ferber, Augustyn 93 Ferber, Konstanty 244 Filipowski, Hieronim 27, 30 Firlej, family 178, 180, 189, 193 Firlej, Andrzej (d. 1585) 180 Firlej, Andrzej (d. 1609) 180 Firlej, Andrzej (d. 1649) 193

Name and Authors Index Firlej, Andrzej (d. 1660) 95, 135, 193 Firlej, Andrzej (d. 1668) 193 Firlej, Anna see Leszczyńska, Anna Firlej, Anna see Ossolińska, Anna Firlej, Barbara née Mniszech 180 Firlej, Dorota see Sapieha, Dorota 1 voto Zbarażka Firlej, Henryk 180 Firlej, Jan (d.1574) 26, 180 Firlej, Jan (d.1614) 180 Frilej, Katarzyna née Gnojeńska 193 Firlej, Mikołaj 180 Firlej, Piotr 180 Forbes, Tomasz 156 Frick, Daniel 120, 158–​159, 216, 224–​255, 264–​265 Friedrich, Karin 240 Frost, Robert 8 Gembicki, Jakub (1569-​1633) 115, 119 Gembicki, Jakub The Younger (d.1645)  127–​128 Gierałtowski, family 168, 205 Giertych, Marcin 69 Gilowski, Paweł 31–​32, 121, 203 Glińska, Anna 96 Girk, Jan 248 Glening, Jerzy 255 Glemma, Tadeusz 240–​242, 247–​249, 251 Głąb, Zbigniew 275 Gmiterek, Henryk 26, 26–​29, 33, 36–​37, 39, 41, 53, 59, 61, 63, 66, 69, 80, 127–​128, 139, 143, 145, 147, 195, 211, 215, 238, 263, 283 Gnapheus, Wilhelm (Willem van der Voldergraft) 251 Golliusz, Jan 134–​135, 144, 151 Gomarus, Franciscus 126 Gorajska, Bogumiła –​see Potocka, Bogumiła Gorajska, Katarzyna née Radziwiłł 158 Gorajska, Teodora née Leszczyńska 82, 271 Gorajska, Teofilia –​see Hornostaj, Teofilia Gorajska, Teofilia (d. 1701) –​see Rej, Teofilia (d.1701) Gorajska, Zofia –​see Suchodolska, Zofia Gorajski, Adam 236 Gorajski, Piotr 158 Gorajski, Zbigniew 174, 271 Gorczyca, Krzysztof 183, 268 Gorski, Marcin 174

Name and Authors Index Gosławska, Barbara –​see Dembińska, Barbara Gosławski, NN 98, 101 Gostomski, Anzelm 187, 231–​232 Gostomski, Hieronim 187 Gostomski, Jan 187 Gostomski, Stanisław 187, 232 Goudimel, Calude 119 Gorzeńska, Helena –​see Bronikowska, Helena Górka, Łukasz 87, 168 Górska, Halina 93 Górski, family 225 Górska, Elżbieta 144 Grabowski, Taduesz 69 Grodzicki, Stanisław 234 Grodziecki, Adam 65–​66 Grodzki, Jędrzej 208 Grudziński, family 168, 191 Grudzińska, Jadwiga née Cerekwicka 192, 267 Grudziński, Zygmunt 192, 227–​228, 267 Grużewski, family 115, 280 Grużewska, Anna née Potocka 262 Grużewska, Marcjanna née Podeberska 154, 269, 271 Grużewska, Zofia née Radzimińska 217 Grużewski, Bolesław 154, 174, 217, 262, 269, 271 Grużewski, Jan 174, 217 Grużewski, Jerzy 174, 217 Grzegorz Paweł z Brzezin 31–​32, 233 Grzegorz z Żarnowca 120, 145 Grzembski, Maciej 226 Grzybowski, Jakub 115, 124–​125, 237–​238 Grzybowski, Stanisław 184 Guldenstern, Anna née Czema 159, 253–​254, 264, 271 Guldenstern, Barbara Marianna –​see Łoś, Barbara Marianna Guldenstern, Katarzyna Lukrecja –​see Katarzyna Lukrecja, Konopacka Guldenstern, Władysław Kazimierz 254, 264 Guldenstern, Zygmunt 253, 264 Guldon, Zenon 145, 228 Gustav ii Adolf, King of Sweden 252 Gutterowa-​Doborodziejska, Katarzyna 270 Hajdukiewicz, Leszek 233 Haratym, Andrzej 190 Hartleb, Kazimierz 173

313 Hartmann, Adam Samuel 141, 143 Hazler, family 125 Hazler, Gabriel 118 Heitzman, Irena 158, 271 Herbst, Stanisław 155 Herlicz, Łukasz 120, 123 Henry iv Bourbon, King of Nawarre and France 170, 254 Herman, Andrzej 115, 236 Hillebrand, Hans J.4  Hlebowicz, family 169 Hlebowicz, Anna Marcybella see Ogińska, Anna Marcybella Hlebowicz, Jan 156, 265 Hlebowicz, Jerzy Karol 3, 185 Hlebowicz, Katarzyna née Krotoska 265 Hlebowicz, Mikołaj 179 Hlebowicz, Katarzyna née Radziwiłł 3, 5, 159, 185, 269 Hlebowicz, Krystyna Barbara see Sapieha, Krystyna Barbara Holfeld, Johann 267 Hołowczyński, family 169 Hornostaj, Elżbieta –​see Abaramowicz, Elżbieta Hornostaj, Samuel 271 Hornostaj, Teofilia née Gorajska 271 Hosius, Stanisław 251–​252 Hünefeld, Andrzej 82 Hunter, Andrzej 96–​97 Hunter, Katarzyna 270 Hus, Jan 23 Izrael, Jerzy 24–​25, 27, 50, 67, 87, 145, 166, 202, 258 Jacobi, Elias 144 Jacobi, Marina 144, 267 Jadwiga d’Anjou, Queen of Poland 12 Jan ii Kazimierz Waza, King of Poland  133​, 183, 225, 230, 247, 264, 283 Jankowska, Anna née Ostroróg 23, 166​, 258 Jankowski, Grzegorz 119–​120, 209 Jarczykowa, Mariola 266 Jarzyna, family 125 Jelińska, Joanna  Jewłaszewska, Hanna née Bołtówna 186 Jewłaszewski, family 186 Jewłaszewski, Jarosz 183 Jewłaszewski, Kazimierz Ludwik 183

314  Jewłaszewski, Teodor 170, 186 Jezierski, Franciszek 36, 57–​58, 61, 73–​74 Jobert, Amboise 278 Jonston, Jan 143 Jordan, Anna née Sieniawska 172 Jordan, Mikołaj 197 Jordan, Spytek Wawrzyniec 172–​173 Jörich, Bartłomiej 240 Jørgensen, Jordt 107 Jurek, Tomasz 259 Jurzak, Bartłomiej 115, 143, 205 Kallenbach, Józef 135, 153, 171 Kałaj, Jan 156 Kałaj, Michał 135 Kamiński, Adam 173, 203 Kaniewska, Irena 26, 51, 157, 167, 182 Karant-​Nunn, Susan 139 Karpluk, Maria 260, 266 Karwicka-​Dunin née Orzechowska, Krystyna 98, 269 Karwicki-​Dunin, Paweł 98–​99 Karwowski, Stanisław 195 Kawecka-​Gryczowa, Alodia 32, 73–​74 Kąsinowska, Anna 258–​259 Keckermann, Bartłomiej 243–​244 Kempa, Tomasz 7, 35, 145, 178, 179, 258, 261 Kępińska, NN 109 Kerstan, Eugen Gustav 253 Keszner, Samuel 129 Kicińska, Urszula 181, 269 Kiec, Olgierd 227 Kiedroń, Stefan 142 Kiettlin, Johann 142 Kin, Kasper 270 King, Katarzyna –​see, Peterson, Katarzyna Kiryk, Feliks 27, 197 Kiszka, Anna –​see Radziwiłł, Anna Kiszka, Anna née Radziwiłł 206, 219–​220 Kiszka, Elżbieta née Ostrogska –​see Radziwiłł, Elżbieta Kiszka, family169 Kiszka, Jan 35, 38, 73, 175 Kiszka, Stanisław 157 Kizik, Edmund 242–​243, 245–​246 Klarner, Szymon 137 Klemp, Aleksander 67, 254–​257, 264 Klemme, Pankracy 240 Klint, Paweł 107, 141, 157, 226 Kłaczewski, Witold 110, 264, 267

Name and Authors Index Kłoczek (Kłoczkówna), Barbara –​see Snowska, Barbara Knoll, Paul 4, 15 Kochanowski, Jan 80 Kochlewski, family 155 Kochlewska, Dorota 268 Kochlewski, Piotr 79–​80, 82–​83, 127, 144, 155–​156, 265 Kochlewski, Stanisław 83 Komensky, Jan Amos 136–​137, 141 Komorowski, family 202, 204 Konarski, family 131, 285 Konarska, Oktawia née Świda 131 Konarski, Szymon 99, 120, 126, 131, 161, 264 Konopacka, Katarzyna Lukrecja née Guldenstern 264 Konopacka, Magdalena Teresa 264 Konopacki, Stanisław 264 Kopecki, Daniel 254 Korecka, Anna née Chodkiewicz 263 Korzeński, Adam 94–​95 Korzo, Margita 132, 146–​147 Kosman, Maceli 39 Kossowski, Aleksander 33, 200, 211, 237–​238 Kościelak, Sławomir 240, 243–​247 Koścień, family 169 Koścień, Wojciech 209 Kot, Stanisław 114, 143, 173, 185, 204–​205, 263, 266 Kotek, Jan 108 Kowalkowski, Jacek 159, 264 Kowalska (Kowalska-​Kossobudzka), Halina  7, 26, 28–​32, 37, 56, 59, 64, 70, 88, 114, 145, 167, 177, 179, 181, 185, 194–​195, 263 Kowalski, Waldemar 36, 49, 96, 121, 139, 145, 156, 188, 190, 193, 209, 213, 228, 234, 236, 266–​267, 27 Kraiński, Krzysztof 47, 57–​61, 64, 68–​69, 75–​76, 83, 117, 122, 132–​133, 145–​147, 185–​186, 188, 237 Krasnowicki, Zachariasz 119–​120 Krasny, Piotr 153 Krause, Heinz 249 Kreza, family 169, 210 Kreza, Aleksander 210 Kreza, Urszula –​see Strasz, Zofia Kriegseisen, Jacek 256 Kriegseisen, Wojciech 4, 16, 18–​19, 28–​29, 139, 146, 155, 16

Name and Authors Index Krokowski (von Krockow), family 170, 253–​254 Krokowska, Anna –​see Latalska, Anna Krokowski, Erazm i (1575–​1631) 254 Krokowski, Erazm ii (d. 1681) 124, 254–​255 Krokowski, Reinhold 170, 254 Krośniewiecki, Jan 117 Krotoska, Katarzyna –​see Hlebowicz, Katarzyna Krotoski, Jan 168, 265 Krotoski, Jakub 215 Krowicki, Marcin 49, 52, 206–​207 Krupka-​Przecławski, Melchior 138–​139 Kryst, Jan 211 Kupisz, Dariusz 174, 271 Kurnatowski, family 280 Kuźmina, Dariusz 59 Kwilecki, family 169–​170 Kwilecki, Jan 169–​170 Lacka, Joanna née Talwosz 216, 263–​264 Lacki, Jan Alfons 216, 263–​264 Laetus, Jan 130 Laetus, Jerzy 130, 142–​143 Lanckoroński, Jan 167, 206–​207 Lanckoroński, Krzysztof 197 Lanckoroński, Samuel 207 Lasocki, Stanisław 30 Latalska, Anna née Krokowska 270 Latalska, Anna née Leszczyńska 194 Latalska, Elżbieta –​see Świdwa Szamotulska, Elżbieta Latalski, Rafał 270 Latosiński, Józef 203–​205 Laureo, Vincenzo 232 Lehman, Jerzy 29, 32 Leitgeber, Sławomir 181 Lenczewski, Tomasz 176, 206 Leo x, pope 16–​17 Lepszy, Kazimierz 171, 175, 180, 182, 187, 233 Leszczyński, Rafał 265 Leszczyński, family 37–​38, 70, 178, 182, 194, 213, 216, 228, 271, 279 Leszczyńska, Anna –​see Latalska, Anna Leszczyńska, Anna –​see Potocka Anna Leszczyńska, Anna née Firlej 180 Leszczyńska, Anna née  Rozdrażewska 181, 262 Leszczyńska, Barbara –​see Przyjemska, Barbara or Słupecka, Barbara

315 Leszczyńska, Katarzyna –​see Czema, Katarzyna Leszczyńska, Marianna –​see Zasławska, Marianna Leszczyńska, Teodora –​see Gorajska, Teodora Leszczyńska, Teofilia (d.1682) 194–​195 Leszczyńska, Zofia née Opalińska 180, 194 Leszczyński, Andrzej (1559–​1606) 37–​38, 63, 180, 194 Leszczyński, Andrzej (1606–​1651) 37, 44–​45, 194–​195 Leszczyński, Andrzej (c.1649–​1693) 195 Leszczyński, Bogusław 43–​45, 128, 194–​195 Leszczyński, Rafał (c. 1526–​1592) 194, 226–​227 Leszczyński, Rafał ii (1579–​1636) 37, 43, 107, 134, 136–​137, 141, 180, 194 Leszczyński, Rafał iii (1607–​1 644) 194–​195 Leszczyński, Samuel 44–​45, 194–​195, 213 Leszczyński, Wacław (d. 1628) 38, 177, 194, 262 Leszczyński, Wacław (1605–​1666) 180, 194, 263 Leszczyński, Władysław 174, 194–​195 Lewicka-​Kamińska, Anna 36 Liedke, Marzena 169, 171–​175, 177, 179, 184–​185, 190, 218, 263, 266, 271 Lipska, Anna née Słupecka 266 Lismanin, Franciszek 30–​31, 51 Lorenc, Jan 24 Lubieniecki, Stanisław 13, 30, 32, 4 Lukšaitė, Ingė 150 Lulewicz, Henryk 34–​35, 38, 71, 73, 75, 169, 177–​178, 189, 223–​224 Luther, Martin 16, 240 Lutomirski, family 115, 125, 273 Lutomirska Barbara née Łaska 114 Lutomirska, Zofia –​see Myszkowska, Zofia Lutomirski, Baltazar 273–​274 Lutomirski, Mikołaj 274 Lutomirski, Stanisław 31, 55–​56, 114 Łaska, Barbara –​see Lutomirska, Barbara Łaski, Jan (Johannes a Lasco) 28–​31, 47, 50–​51, 53–​60, 72, 74, 76–​77, 80–​81, 83, 88–​90, 94, 97–​99, 101, 114, 138, 151–​152, 177, 184, 192, 245–​246 Łaski, Olbracht 177 Łaski, Samuel 184, 245–​246 Łaziński, Wojciech 221 Łoziński, Władysław 96, 157, 184, 300

316  Łoś, Barbara Marianna née Guldenstern 264 Łoś, Władysław 264 Łukaszewicz, Józef 23, 212–​213, 270 Łukowski, Baltazar 30 MacCulloch, Diarmaid 4 Machaj, Dawid 171 Maciej z Grodziska 121 Maciuszko, Janusz 49, 146–​147 Mackiewicz, family 115, 280 Mackiewicz-​Cat, Stanisław 165 Majewski, family 125 Majewska-​Lancholc, Teresa 134, 160 Majewski, Wacław 45, 195 Majewski, Wojciech 255–​256 Makowski, family 280 Makowski, Jan (Johann Maccovius) 142, 211 Makowski, Maciej 211 Malespina, Germanicus 185 Malina, Adam 206 Maliszewski, Kazimierz 248–​250 Małłek, Janusz 232, 240–​241, 249–​250 Maria Ludwika Gonzaga, Queen of Poland 182–​183 Markiewicz, Jerzy 271 Marszewski, Wojciech 168 Maryjański, Aleksander [B.J.K.] 75 Mączak, Antoni 10 Melanchthon, Philip 50, 242, 243, 248, 275 Memorata, Anna 144, 265 Memoratus, Jan 122 Memoratus, Jan (d.1659) 127 Memoratus, Jakub 144 Merczyng, Henryk 23, 33–​34, 192, 200, 211–​213, 223, 227, 263–​264, 277 Męciński, family 168 Męciński, Andrzej 137 Męciński, Jan 199 Mielecka, Elżbieta née Radziwiłł 172, 177, 261 Mielecki, Mikołaj 177 Mielęcki, Samuel 128, 156–​157 Miękicka, Barbara 268 Mitkiewiczówna Poszuszwieńska, Zofia –​see Zofia Wnuczkowa Miklauskas, Rimas 102, 106 Mikołaj the Goldsmith 156 Mikołajewski, Daniel 38, 70–​71, 77–​78

Name and Authors Index Miller, James 30 Mincer, Franciszek 184 Minwid, Krzysztof 150 Minwid, Mikołaj 150 Minwid, Samuel 150 Mokrzecki, Lech 244, 246 Mollerus, Jakub 104 Mones, family 224 Mones, Henryk 225 Morsztyn, Jan Andrzej 263 Morsztyn, Teolfilia –​see Rej, Teofilia Moulin de, Peter 147 Muczkowski, Józef Jakub 234 Musaeus, Simon 247 Musonius, Andrzej (d. 1662/​1663) 84, 103 Musonius, family 125, 216 Musonius, Jan (1610–​1 665) 124, 254–​255 Musonius, Jan (d.1688) 124 Müller, Michael G. 240–​241, 243–​246 Müller, Wiesław 178 Mylius, Dawid 253 Mylius, Jan 253 Mylius, Jakub 109–​110 Mylius, Michael 253 Myszkowski, family 167–​169, 178–​179 Myszkowska, Agnieszka see Dłuska Agnieszka Myszkowska, Barbara –​see Bużeńska, Barbara Myszkowska, Zofia née Lutomirska 268, 274 Myszkowski, Piotr 179 Myszkowski, Stanisław 32, 167, 234, 261 Naborowski, Daniel 79–​80, 158 Nachor-​Paszkowski, Maciej 118 Nadolski, Broniłsaw 244 Nagielski, Mirosław 199 Neuenachbar, Jan 251 Niclassus, Wojciech 246 Niemsta, Jerzy 232 Niesiecki, Kasper 183 Niszczycki, family 145 Niszczycki, Krzysztof 145 Noga, Zdzisław 33 Nonhart, Rachela née Szemet 269 Nowak, Zbigniew 240 Nowosad, Wiesław 159, 264 Ogińska, Anna Marcybella née Hlebowicz 3, 185, 269

Name and Authors Index Oleśnicki, family 167 Oleśnicka, Elżbieta see Orzechowska, Elżbieta Oleśnicka, Zofia see Dulska, Zofia Oleśnicka, Zofia –​see Strasz, Zofia Oleśnicki, Andrzej 98, 101 Oleśnicki, Jan 212 Oleśnicki Mikołaj (d.1566) 25–​26, 30, 47, 49, 167, 200–​201, 206, 212 Oleśnicki, Mikołaj (1558-​1620) 212 Oliński, Jan 154, 158 Opalińska, Zofia –​see Leszczyńska, Zofia Orminius, Marcin 44 Orlicz, Elżbieta 121, 158 Orlicz, family 125 Orlicz, Mikołaj 121, 158 Orlicz, Paweł 133–​ Orlicz, Paweł (1599–​1649) 129–​130, 249 Orzechowski, family 167, 175–​176, 211 Orzechowska, Aleksandra –​see Chrząstowska, Aleksandra 1 voto Gnojeńska Orzechowska, Anna née Ostroróg 176 Orzechowska, Elżbieta née Oleśnicka 176 Orzechowski, Bogusław 176 Orzechowski, Jan 176 Orzechowski, Paweł (c.1550–​1612) 175–​176 Orzechowski, Paweł The Younger (d.1632) 176 Orzechowski, Stanisław (d. 1566) 48 Orzechowski, Stanisław (d. c. 1660) 176 Orzechowski, Teodor Konstanty 176 Ossoliński, family 169, 178 Ossolińska, Anna –​see Zamoyska, Anna Ossolińska Anna née Firlej 180 Ossolińska, Jadwiga 262 Ossoliński, Hieronim 30, 167, 180 Ossoliński, Jan Zbigniew 180, 262 Ossoliński, Przecław 169 Ostrogski, family 12 Ostrogska, Elżbieta –​see Radziwiłł, Elżbieta 1 voto Kiszka Ostrogska, Katarzyna –​see Radziwiłł, Katarzyna Ostrogska, Zofia née Tarnowska 7, 173 Ostrogski, Aleksander 7, 173 Ostrogski, Konstanty Wasyl 7, 173 Ostroróg, family 23, 166–​167, 258–​259 Ostroróg, Anna –​see Jankowska, Anna Ostroróg, Anna –​see Oleśnicka, Anna

317 Ostroróg, Barbara née Stadnicka 166–​167, 258–​259 Ostroróg, Elżbieta –​see Żeleńska, Elżbieta Ostroróg, Jakub 23, 27, 114, 132–​133, 136, 166, 206, 214–​215, 227, 258–​259 Ostroróg, Katarzyna 23, 166–​167, 258–​259, 265, 267 Ostroróg, Katarzyna (d.c.1589) –​see Świdwa-​ Szamotulska, Katarzyna Ożarowska, Teofilia 266 Pac, family 169 Pac, Jan 178 Pac, Mikołaj 114 Pac, Zofia née Wiśniowiecka 178 Paklepka, Stanisław 236 Palczowski, family 168 Pańczak, Alojzy 266 Papłoński, Daniel 116–​117 Parlai, Jan 125 Parlai, Stanisław 125 Paszkiewicz, family 224 Pauli, Jerzy 246 Pawelec, Mariusz 44, 62, 107, 128, 158, 168, 203, 205 Pawlak, Marian 241, 252–​253 Pawłowska, Jadwiga 226 Pelczar, Marian 253, 264 Peterson, Katarzyna née King 270 Petkunas, Darius 4, 29, 43, 48–​49, 54–​57, 59, 61, 63, 72, 74, 80, 83, 85, 150, 152–​153 Pielas, Jerzy 26, 47, 201, 206, 212–​213 Pieniążek, family 168 Pieniążek, Agnieszka 62, 270 Pieniążek, Przecław 270 Pierzyk, Zdzisław 167 Pietraszek, Jan The Older 118 Pietraszek, Jan The Younger 118 Pirożyński, Jan 260–​261, 266 Plewczyński, Marek 182 Płachta, Franciszek 115, 199, 212, 280, 285 Płużańska, Zofia 146 Pociecha, Władysław 114 Podraza, Anotni 187 Poniatowska, Krystyna 136–​137, 144 Podbereska-​Samson, Dorota née Zawisza 268–​269 Podbereska-​Samson, Elżbieta –​see Dorohostajska, Elżbieta

318  Podbereska-​Samson, Marcjanna –​see Grużewska, Marcjanna Podlodowski, family 139, 144, 167 Podlodowska, Jadwiga –​see Suchodolska, Jadwiga Połubińska, Krystyna 269 Popowski, Jakub 74 Porcjusz, Wojciech (Robert Gilbert Porteous de Lanxeth) 229 Potocka, Anna née Leszczyńska 154, 159, 262 Potocka, Anna see Grużewska, Anna Potocka, Bogumiła 2 voto Butler née Gorajska 271 Potocka, Katarzyna née Buczacka-​Tworowska  261–​262 Potocki, Jan Teodoryk 147, 262 Potocki, Krzysztof 261–​262 Potulicka, Katarzyna –​see Rozdrażewska Katarzyna Potworowska, Katarzyna née Łaszkowska 268 Praetorius, Peter 243–​244 Prażmowski, Andrzej 226, 233 Pritzel, Erwin 244, 246–​247 Prüfer, Daniel 125 Prüfer, Krystyna 1 voto Wigantius 125 Przebendowski, family 253 Przyjemska, Barbara née Leszczyńska 70, 194, 267 Przyjemski, Rafał 70–​71 Przyjemski, Władysław 70 Przypkowski, Aleksander 79 Pszonka, Adam 184 Pszonka, Jakub 184 Ptaszyński, M. 18, 19, 25, 27–​33, 49, 95, 99, 114, 170, 172–​173, 176, 273, 280 Radzimińska, Zofia –​see Grużewska, Zofia Radziszowski, Jan 119 Radziwiłł, family 3, 39, 132, 159–​161, 169–​170, 178, 181, 189, 218–​220, 223–​225, 269 Radziwiłł, Anna (1553–​1590) –​see Buczacka, Anna Radziwiłł, Anna née Kiszka 155, 159, 175, 269 Radziwiłł Anna, née Sobek 175, 259 Radziwiłł, Anna Maria née Radziwiłł  159, 269 Radziwiłł, Bogusław 134, 159–​161, 182, 189, 219–​220, 269

Name and Authors Index Radziwiłł, Elizabeth Sophia née Hohenzollern 175 Radziwiłł, Elżbieta see Mielecka, Elżbieta Radziwiłł, Elżbieta see Sapieha, Elżbieta Radziwiłł, Elżbieta née Ostrogska 1 voto Kiszka 7, 175 Radziwiłł, Elżbieta née Szydłowiecka 167, 182, 260–​261, 265–​266, 276 Radziwiłł, Elżbieta née Wiśniowiecka 169, 178 Radziwiłł, Janusz i (1579–​1620) 158, 175, 218–​219 Radziwiłł, Janusz ii (1612–​1655) 41, 79, 84, 133–​134, 159–​160, 189, 220 Radziwiłł, Jerzy (1556–​1600) 35, 73, 144, 178–​179, 182, 188–​189 Radziwiłł, Jerzy (1578–​1613) 75, 153, 158–​159 Radziwiłł, Katarzyna –​see Gorajska Katarzyna Radziwiłł, Katarzyna née Ostrogska 7, 175 Radziwiłł, Katarzyna née Tęczyńska 1 voto Olekowicz Słucka 172, 175 Radziwiłł, Krystyna –​see Zamoyska, Krystyna Radziwiłł, Krzysztof i The Thunderbolt” (1547-​1603) 172, 175, 218, 259, 280 Radziwiłł, Krzysztof ii (1585-​1640) 39–​40, 77, 82–​84, 118, 134, 153–​155, 159–​160, 172, 175, 177, 189, 191, 218–​220, 224, 269 Radziwiłł, Ludwika Karolina 3, 159–​161 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj The Black 35, 54, 71–​73, 144, 165, 167, 169, 172, 174, 177, 182, 188, 233, 260, 276–​277 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj The Orphan 38, 73, 169, 178–​179, 182, 188–​189, 259–​260, 277 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj The Red 35, 72–​73, 165, 167, 169, 180 Radziwiłł, Zofia (1553–​c.1609) –​see Czema, Zofia Radziwiłł, Zofia –​see Dorohostajska Zofia Radziwiłł, Zofia née Zborowska 75, 158–​159 Radziwiłł, Zofia née Olekowicz-​Słucka 158, 175, 219 Rassius, Adam 122 Rassius, Franciszek 122 Rayski, family 280 Reczyński, family 125 Regulus, Daniel 144 Regulus, Krystyna 144

Name and Authors Index Reitz von, Reinhold 120 Rej, family 221 Rej Andrzej (d. 1602) 168 Rej, Andrzej (c.1584-​1641) 214 Rej, Andrzej (d. 1662) 263 Rej, Katarzyna née Dembińska 168 Rej, Mikołaj 168 Rej, Teofilia (d. 1701) née Gorajska 264, 271 Rej, Teofilia née Morsztyn 2 voto Derszniak 263 Rej, Władysław 264 Rej, Zofia née Gosławska 269 Roe, Thomas 189 Rohan de, family 3 Rokossowski, Andrzej 259 Rokita, Jan 27 Rolska, Irena 26 Rott, Dariusz 137, 144 Rotterdam, Erasmus 18, 114, 138–​139, 172 Rozdrażewska, Anna –​see Leszczyńska, Anna Rozdrażewska, Katarzyna née Potulicka 181, 262 Rozdrażewski, Jan 181, 262 Rucka, Iweta 86 Ruchajewicz, Małgorzata –​see Węgierska, Małgorzata Ruelius, Tobias 245 Russocki, family 205, 285 Russocki, Jan 108, 205 Russocki, Mikołaj 108, 205 Russcocki, Piotr 108, 205 Ryba, Jan 51 Rybiński, Jan 44, 128, 147 Rybiński, Maciej 37, 61, 63–​64, 70 Rylski, family 207, 270 Rylska, Krystyna née Płaza 185 Rylska, Marcjanna 269–​270 Rylski, Franciszek 185 Rzeczyńska, NN 265 Rzeczyński, Łukasz 265 Rzepecki, family 125 Rzeszowski, family 169 Rzeszowski, Hieronim 196, 198, 221 Rzeszowski, Maciej 98 Saar-​Kozłowska, Alicja 154, 159, 262 Sajkowski, Alojzy 176 Salomonowicz, Stanisław 250–​251

319 Samsonowicz, Henryk 10 Sanguszko, Dymitr 87 Sapieha, family 169 Sapieha, Dorota née Firlej 1 voto Zbarażka 180 Sapieha, Elżbieta née Radziwiłł 172, 175 Sapieha, Hanna née Wiśniowiecka 178 Sapieha, Krystyna Barbara née Hlebowicz 3, 185, 264, 269 Sapieha, Kazimierz Jan 264 Sapieha, Lew 175, 177, 180 Sapieha, Mikołaj 178 Sapieha, Zofia née Dorohostajska 181 Sarnicki, Stanisław 31–​32, 53, 87 Schilling, Heinz 4 Schramm, Gottfried 165, 231–​232 Schwoger, Jakub 240 Scultetus, Abraham 147 Seredyka, Jan 158, 216, 260, 263 Serpentyn, Krzysztof 113 Sieniawska, Jadwiga née Tarło 181 Sieniawski, family 181–​182 Sieniawski, Hieronim 181–​182 Sienieński, Aleksander 157 Sienieński, Krzysztof, 157 Sienieński, Jakub 157 Sienieński, Zbigniew 26, 197 Sieniuta, family 176 Siennicki, family 168 Sierakowski, family 189 Sietrzeniewicz, Piotr 146 Sikorski, Janusz 32 Sipayłło, Maria 37–​38, 70, 147, 180, 194, 215, 248, 262 Skierski, family 280, 285 Skierski, Tomasz 267 Skwarowie, Marta & Marek 130, 142–​143 Sławiński, Wojciech 33, 35–​36, 39, 57, 73–​74 Sławoszewska, Maria 170, 254 Słończewski, Leonard 113–​114 Słucka-​Olekowicz, Katarzyna née Tęczyńska see Radziwiłł Katarzyna Słucka-​Olekowicz, Zofia see Radziwiłł Zofia Słucki-​Olekowicz Jerzy 172 Słupecki, family 145, 159, 168 Słupecka, Anna –​see Lipska, Anna Słupecka, Anna née Wylam 263 Słupecka, Barbara, née Leszczyńska 63–​64, 159, 185, 194, 238, 262–​263, 266, 271

320  Słupecka, Dorota 185, 262–​263 Słupecka, Zofia 266 Słupecki, Feliks 37, 59, 64, 185, 194, 238, 262 Słupecki, Jerzy 159, 185, 262–​263 Słupecki, Zbigniew 138–​139, 147 Słuszka, Aleksander 190 Słuszka, Hanna –​see Zenowicz Hanna Słuszka, Zofia née Zenowicz 1 voto Kiszka 157, 190 Smolarek, Karolina 119 Snowska, Barbara née Kłoczek (Kłoczkówna) 224 Sobek, Anna –​see Radziwiłł, Anna Sobieski, Wacław 246 Socinus, Faustus 13 Somnitz, family 255–​256 Somnitz von, Lorenz Christoph 255 Sophia (Zofia) Jagiellonka, Duchess of Braunschweig 260 Speratus, Kacper 104 Spicer, Andrew 154 Spinek, family 168 Springer, Michael S 54, 88, 99 Sroczyński, Zbigniew 167 Stadnicka, Barbara –​see Ostroróg, Barbara Stadnicki, NN 108 Stadnicki, Stanisław (d.c.1563) 49, 157, 167 Standnicki, Stanisław „The Devil” 157 Stancaro, Francesco 25–​27, 29–​31, 47–​49, 52, 54, 115, 157, 167, 280 Stankar, family 36, 115, 125, 280 Stankar, Franciszek 36, 115, 117, 122 Starke, Arnold 44, 126 Stefan Batory, King of Poland 189, 204, 225–​226, 228, 230, 232, 243, 253 Sternberg, Stanisław 138–​139 Stępień, Paweł 263 Stoiński, Jan 134 Strasz, Krzysztof 210 Strasz, Urszula née Kreza 210 Strasz, Zofia née Oleśnicka 210 Stroband, Henryk 143, 248 Suchodolski, family 168 Suchodolska, Jadwiga née Podlodowska 267 Suchodolska, Zofia née Gorajska 2 voto Potocka 267, 271 Suchodolski, Adam (d.1656) 110, 267 Suchodolski, Adam (d.1714) 99

Name and Authors Index Sylvius (Sylwiusz), Jakub 26, 31–​32, 47–​49, 51–​53, 56 Svenichen, Alexander 240 Szafraniec, Anna née Dembińska 167–​168 Szafraniec, family 169, 209 Szafraniec, Hieronim 210 Szafraniec, Stanisław 26, 48, 51, 114, 137, 168–​169, 207, 265 Szamowska, Barbara née Łaszkowska 268 Szczotka, Stanisław 31–​32, 203 Szczucki, Lech 36, 93, 115, 125, 238 Szczygieł, Ryszard 41, 271 Szemet, family 171 Szemet, Aleksandra 269 Szefer, Kazimierz 280, 285 Szlichtyng, family 176 Szlichtyng, Jan Jerzy 134 Szlichtyng, Jonasz 13 Szwarc, Andrzej 10 Szydłowiecka, Elżebieta see Radziwiłł Elżbieta Szymańska, Kamila 107, 141–​144, 226, 267 Śladkowski, Wiesław 271 Śliż, Natalia 144 Świda, family 131, 280 Świda, Oktawia –​see Konarska, Oktawia Świdwa-​Szamotulska, Elżbieta née Latalska 259 Świdwa-​Szamotulska, Katarzyna née Ostroróg (d.c.1589) 259 Świdwa-​Szamotulski, Jan (1522–​1566) 259 Świdwa-​Samotulski, Jan (d.1580/​1581) 259 Talwosz, family 169 Talwosz, Adam 174 Talwosz, Joanna –​see Lacka, Joanna Taplin, Mark 26, 30–​31 Tarło, Jadwiga –​see Sieniawska, Jadwiga Tarnowska, Zofia –​see Ostrogska, Zofia Tarnowski, Jan 173 Tarnowski, Jan Krzysztof 173 Taylor, family 280 Tazbir, Janusz 33–​36, 57, 73, 131, 146–​147, 176, 263, 279 Ternes, Jerzy 179 Tęczyńska Katarzyna –​see Radziwiłł, Katarzyna Tęczyński, Stanisław 172, 236

Name and Authors Index Tęczyński, Jan 172 Tito, Wacław 121 Tolibowski, Wojciech 182–​183 Tomaszewski, Jerzy 10 Tomaszewski, Samuel 123 Tomczak, Andrzej 168, 173, 229 Tomicki, family 178 Tomicki, Jan 168 Tomicki, Piotr 215 Topolska, Maria 167 Trawicka, Zofia 80 Trecy (Trzecielski), Krzysztof 29, 32 Trisner, Marcin 248–​249 Turnowski, Jan The Younger (1567-​1629)  68–​70, 122, 235, 249–​251 Turnowski, Symeon Teofil 24–​25, 38, 69, 103, 115, 118, 120, 136 Tworek, Stanisław 33–​34, 36, 39–​41, 66, 77–​79, 82–​83, 85, 109, 126, 129, 138, 140–​142, 148, 150, 176, 188, 193, 211, 253, 283 Tync, Stanisław 251 Tyszkiewicz-​Skumin, Janusz 224 Tyszkowski, Kazimierz 74, 177 Uchański, Paweł 113 Ujma, Magdalena 87 Urban, Wacław 17, 26, 41, 121, 132, 139, 143–​144, 170–​171, 184, 196–​197, 199–​201, 204–​211, 213, 221, 227–​230, 234, 260, 265, 270, 273 Vartensius, Henryk 108 Vermigli, Peter 30 Vetter, David 144 Wajsblum, Marek 86, 135, 176, 182–​183, 193, 213, 271 Wardyński, Wojciech 102 Wasilewski, Tadeusz 157, 158, 189, 262–​263 Wetter, Evelin 154 Węgierski, family 122 Węgierska, Małgorzata née Ruchajewicz 260 Węgierski, Andrzej 41, 129, 260 Węgierski, Jan 260 Węgierski, Tomasz 40–​41, 44–​45, 79–​83, 129–​130, 213, 259–​260, 285 Węgierski, Wacław 259–​260

321 Węgierski, Wojciech Jr. (1604–​1659) 127, 236, 260 Wied von, Hermann 48 Wielogłowski, Sebastian 139 Wijaczka, Jerzy 165, 196, 200, 213, 228, 273, 277 Wilbur, Earl M 13, 29–​31, 35 Wilczewska, Krystyna 93 Williams, George H 30 Wiligantius, Barbara see Epenet, Barbara Wiligantius, David 125 Wiligantius Krystyna see Prüfer, Krystyna Winhold, family 224 Winhold, Korneliusz 159 Winiarska, Izabela Maria 86, 132 Wisłocki, Jerzy 193, 267 Wisner, Henryk 134, 159, 259 Wiszowaty, Andrzej 13 Wiśniewski, Jerzy 179 Wiśniowiecka, Aleksandra –​see Czartoryska, Aleksandra Wiśniowiecka, Elżbieta –​see Radziwiłł, Elżbieta Wiśniowiecka, Hanna –​see Sapieha, Hanna Wiśniowiecka, Zofia –​see Pac, Zofia Witrelin, Aleksander 96–​97, 121, 154 Witrelin, Jadwiga 96–​97, 121 Władysław ii Jagiełło, King of Poland 12 Władysław iv Waza, King of Poland 8, 12, 134, 189, 211, 223 Włodarski, Józef 254 Wnuczkowa, Zofia née Mitkiewiczówna Poszuszwieńska 150, 219, 268 Wojdovius, Andrzej 210 Wolan, family 115 Wolan, NN 134 Wolan, Tomasz 79 Wolfius, Jakub 125 Wolfagius, Jakub (d.1634) 134 Wolski, Zygmunt 231 Wołłowicz, family 189 Wołłowicz, Fedora –​see Zenowicz, Fedora 1 voto Tyszkiewicz Wołłowicz, Ostafi 132, 138, 217 Wołodkowicz, Mikołaj 102 Wotschke, Theodor 29 Wujek, Jakub 145 Wyczawski, Hieronim 114

322  Wylam, Anna –​see Słupecka, Anna Wylam, Jan 148 Wyrozumski, Jerzy 7 Young, Dawid 119 Zaborowski, Jakub 92–​93, 96, 99, 133, 199–​200 Zachara, Maria 134, 160 Zacjusz, Szymon 35, 49, 54–​55, 71, 233 Zakrzewska Anna –​see Bobrownicka, Anna Załęski, Stanisław 208, 230 Zamoyski, family 277 Zamoyska, Anna née Ossolińska 168 Zamoyska, Krystyna née Radziwiłł 168, 180, 261 Zamoyski, Jan 168, 175, 178, 180, 182, 229, 232, 261, 277 Zasławska, Marianna née Leszczyńska 63, 194, 238, 271 Zawadzki, Jarosław 206 Zawadzki-​Korzbok, Bartłomiej 104 Zawisza, family 169 Zawisza, Andrzej 268 Zawisza, Dorota –​see Podbereska-​ Samson, Dorota Zawisza, Dorota 268 Zbarażki, Stefan 180 Zbąski, family 61 Zbirowski, Rafał 74 Zborowski, family 87, 169, 197 Zborowska, Krystyna –​see Chodkiewicz, Krystyna Zborowska Zofia –​see Radziwiłł, Zofia Zborowski, Marcin 87, 227

Name and Authors Index Zborowski, Piotr 32, 167, 197 Zebrzydowski, Andrzej 113 Zenowicz, family 169 Zenowicz, Fedora née Wołłowicz 1 voto Tyszkiewicz 190, 259 Zenowicz, Hanna née Słuszka 158–​159 Zenowicz, Jerzy 158–​159 Zenowicz, Krzysztof 143, 155–​156, 190, 259 Zenowicz, Mikołaj Bogusław 143, 190 Zenowicz, Zofia née Pac 190 Zenowicz, Zofia –​see Słuszka, Zofia Zimmermann, Peter 250 Zugerhör, Martin 143 Zwingli, Ulrich 48, 138 Zygmunt i The Old, King of Poland 8, 16–​19, 170, 240 Zygmunt ii August, King of Poland 8, 18–​19, 26, 49, 54–​55, 167, 171–​173, 222, 225, 229–​231, 233, 241, 260, 275–​276 Zygmunt iii Waza, King of Poland 36, 40, 79, 189–​190, 226, 228, 235, 238, 245–​246 Zygrowiusz, Jan 75, 122 Żarnowita, Paweł 120 Żegocki, Krzysztof 228 Żeleńska, Elżbieta née Ostroróg 167 Żeleński, Bartłomiej 167 Żelewski, Roman 177, 179 Żółkiewski, family 179 Żółkiewski, Aleksander 179 Żółkiewski, Stefan 179 Żychliński, family 128 Żychlińska, Katarzyna 268 Żychliński, Stefan 124, 128, 135–​136, 183, 279 Žirgulis, Rimantas 37, 150