Concord (Consensus) of Sandomierz

Maciej Ptaszyński

 

 

The Concord of Sandomierz was an agreement among Polish Calvinists, Lutherans, and Bohemian Brothers upon intercommunion and several organizational regulations. At the Synod, the delegates also agreed upon a confession of faith, which was merely a translation into Polish of Heinrich Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession.

Ongoing dialogue between these three confessions in Poland was prompted by the political conjuncture as well as by the theological offensive of the Roman Catholic Church, which had led to a wave of reconversions among the Polish and Lithuanian nobility. Additionally, the growth of Antitrinitarians played a part in the decision to summon this Synod. In political terms, the state of affairs had dramatically changed after the Union of Lublin (1569), replacing the personal union of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with a formal union of two countries. During the proceedings at Lublin, important matters regarding faith still had to be settled. King Sigismund II Augustus, in a speech delivered on 12 August 1569, revealed his anxieties about ‘the diversity of religions and the different understandings of the holy Christian religion’. Just four days earlier, he had allowed the construction of a Protestant cemetery in Cracow. His words could indeed be perceived as a spark of hope by Protestants seeking to legalize their confessions, provided that they could accept to be reunited in a single Church. However, the King was a fifty-year-old man without a direct heir to the throne, and his third wife, Catherine of Austria, had left Poland in 1566. On the one hand, Protestants hoped that the King could be persuaded to divorce; on the other hand, they feared that his successor might resort to persecution.

Synodal works were held from 9 to 14 April 1570. Following the tradition, the divine service and the election of moderators preceded the opening of the Synod. Four moderators were chosen: two secular (the palatinus of Sandomierz Piotr Zborowski and the leading nobleman Stanisław Iwan Karmiński) and two clerical (Reformed pastors Paweł Gilowski and Andrzej Prażmowski). This choice reveals the crucial role played by the nobility and the Reformed clergy of Lesser Poland in the Synod of Sandomierz. The high nobility of Lesser Poland was represented, among others, by the palatinus and capitaneus of Cracow Stanisław Myszkowski, the capitaneus of Oświęcim Zygmunt Myszkowski, and the castellanus of Lublin Stanisław Słupecki; probably, the castellanus of Biecz Stanisław Szafraniec also participated in the Synod. Local political leaders such as Leonard Strasz and Mikołaj Dłuski were also in Sandomierz. Other regions and other confessions did not share the enthusiasm of Lesser Poland. The Reformed Church of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania failed to send any delegates to the Synod; the Lutheran Church of Greater Poland sent only two pastors, Erazm and Mikołaj Gliczner, and Stanisław Bniński, the iudex of Poznań; the Bohemian Brethren sent only a deacon, Simeon Teofil Turnowski, who later had a distinguished career in the Brethren, but in 1570 was a young and inexperienced man. The high number of participants represented a great success for this intra-Protestant initiative.

On 10 April (the second day of synodal works), the churches’ delegations presented their letters, which were discussed by the assembly. In the first speech, Erazm Gliczner, spokesman of the Lutherans, evoked the authority of Martin Luther, declared his commitment to the Augsburg Confession, and criticized the Brethren. The latter’s orator, Andrzej Prażmowski (Jędrzej Prasmovius), defended the reputation of the Brethren and their confession from Gliczner’s criticisms. In his apologetical speech, he glorified over 150 years of history of the Brethren, going back to the times of Jan Hus and proven by the blood of the martyrs. After hearing the speeches of the other delegations, the assembly questioned some members of the Antitrinitarian community and eventually expelled them from the Synod. Their decision to show up at the Synod of Sandomierz might be a sign of the growing tendency of the ecclesia minor (as the Antitrinitarians defined themselves) to seek to rejoin other Protestant churches. Magisterial Protestants, however, were persuaded that their clear refutation of the ‘Arians’ (as they called Antitrinitarians) was a condicio sine qua non of the success of the Synod.

The exclusion of the ‘Arians’ opened on 10 April the third session of the proceedings, focusing on the debate over the Concord and the text of a confession of faith. During the discussions, Reformed pastors and secular patrons strongly supported the idea of a ‘common and Polish confession’. On the following day, the confession was read and discussed. On 12 April, when Turnowski agreed to the new confession, ‘Gliczners suddenly changed’. As Lutherans realized that the agreement between the Reformed believers of Lesser Poland and the Brethren of Greater Poland had been reached, they appeared to be willing to accept the confession.

Krzysztof Trecy and Jean Thenaud were asked to prepare the first draft of the Concord. A new phase of discussions began: debates over key theological question took the place of the previous hair-splitting about the translation. A bitter controversy, however, emerged over the Eucharist and the presence of Christ. On the one hand, Turnowski objected to the use of the term ‘substantialiter’ and proposed the word ‘vere’ instead; on the other hand, Lutherans demanded the acceptance of the formula from the Confessio Saxonica, a revised version of the Confessio Augustana, as they maintained that this confession had been accepted by Theodore Beza during the Colloquy of Worms in 1557. However, they failed to remember—or pretended not to remember—that Beza’s endorsement of the Augustana specifically excluded the article concerning the Eucharist; on top of that, this ex auctoritate argument could not be accepted by the representatives of the Brethren (in Turnowski’s words: ‘ne illius [Beza’s] quidem auctoritas apud me tanti est, ut aliter faciam, quam iam dixi’). Further discussions were focused on the possibility to admit Roman Catholics to partake in the Eucharist and on infant baptism. Finally, on 13 April, the Concord was accepted and ratified by the representatives of the three confessions and reconfirmed during the closing celebration on the following day.

Above all, the Concord of Sandomierz represented a mutual acknowledgement of the three confessions in all regions of the new Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The first article declared that in the Confessio Helvetica Posterior, the Confessio Augustana and the Confessio Bohemica there were no differences with regard to God, the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, justification, and ‘aliis primariis capitibus fidei Christianae’. However, in the text of the Concord there was no explicit reference to the Confessio Helvetica Posterior: The Concord referred to it as ‘our confession’ (‘confessio nostra’), which was a clear and obvious manipulation. During the proceedings, on 10 April, Stanisław Myszkowski championed ‘our, Polish’ (‘naszą, wszechpolską’) confession. In very similar terms, Krzysztof Trecy had pleaded the previous day for ‘our Polish, and not Czech, Saxon, or Helvetic confession’ (‘Chcemy mieć konfesyją nie czeską, saską, helwecką etc., ale polską własną’). On the one side, this was a hint at an old idea of a national Synod that could quench confessional quarrels; on the other hand, this phrase was formulated this way to get rid of any Lutheran resistance to the agreement. Both Myszkowski and Trecy knew well, however, that this confession was merely a translation into Polish of Bullinger’s work. In January 1570, Trecy had informed Bullinger that he had been ordered to prepare a translation of the Second Helvetic Confession, which the Protestant nobility of Poland intended to offer to the King. This translation had probably been already printed before the Synod took place, although it was not circulated. This improper use of the Second Helvetic Confession had consequences in the long run: for example, in his history of the Polish Reformation, Andrzej Węgierski called the Confession of Sandomierz the ‘Confessio tertia Helvetica’.

The Concord’s second article concerned the Eucharist, which was defined in harmony with Reformed tradition and with the tradition of the Bohemian Brethren (1535 and 1561 confessions), but also with a consistent openness to Lutheran sensibility. The authors of the Concord declared their agreement on ‘the meaning of words’. It is important to underline here the difference between the manuscript version of the Concord and its later printed editions. While the handwritten minutes enigmatically feature the wording ‘in sententia verborum’, printed editions feature ‘in sententia verborum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi’. There is no doubt that the proper meaning of the phrase was fully grasped in the printed and official version. The expression ‘in sententia verborum’ refers to the Words of Institution of Christ. In their definition of the Eucharist, the authors of the Concord referred to Irenaeus of Lyon and his Adversus Haereses. The Concord stated that this phrase meant that the Eucharist was not merely a symbol, but a very specific kind of representation, which is for believers the same thing as what it stands for. This interpretation of the Eucharist was clearly not Lutheran, and could be found both in the Second Helvetic Confession and in the Bohemian Brethren’s confessions. The Lutheran tenet of the ‘substantial presence of Christ’ in the Eucharist was explained according to the Reformed tradition. The adjective ‘substantial’ was transformed into an adverb (‘vere’). The sacrament was offered to the believers according to its nature. This explanation, typical of the Reformed tradition, was nonetheless juxtaposed to an article from the Confessio Saxonica, defining baptism and the Eucharist as ‘testimonies and tokens of grace’; during the administration of these sacraments, (‘in usu’), Christ was present ‘really and substantially’ (‘vere et substantialiter’).

In spite of the dispute of 13 April, which made emerge growing discrepancies, the article as was approved was, on the whole, consistent. The version accepted by the Brethren and the Reformed representatives emphasized the sacramental nature of the presence, which Turnowski formulated in the discussion as ‘secundum sacramentorum naturam’. The goal of this formulation was to avoid any ambiguity on the ‘real presence of the body of Christ’ (‘corporaliter’). This formulation was similar to the one found in the Confessio Saxonica, which included a ‘moderate’ interpretation of the mystery of the presence of Christ, typical of Philip Melanchthon’s theology. This formulation was allegedly proposed by Gliczner (a Philippist) as a good ground for compromise. Gliczner would certainly have wanted the word ‘body’ to feature in the Concord, along with the concepts of ‘communicatio idiomatum’ and ‘manducatio idignorum’; however, this did not prevent his acceptance of the Concord.

Some theological and liturgical issues were purposely avoided in the text of the Concord. It stated that each confession should preserve its specificities in liturgical matters as in the Augustana and in the Saxonica, which was a clear hint at the category of adiaphora. Regardless of these differences, though, the different confessions should cooperate on an administrative and organisational level; believers could attend sermons delivered by ministers of other confessions (‘auditione verbi frequentando’) as well as the Eucharist; the three confessions should hold general synods together. Participants also expressed the wish to publish a common ‘compendium corporis doctrinae’ (the corpora doctrinae are a literary genre typical of Protestant confessions; Melanchthon put together a popular anthology himself, the Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum) and to print all the confessions of faith together in order to show their orthodoxy and uniformity. Finally, the authors of the Concord of Sandomierz promised to work for peace and unity among the churches, and they silenced all opponents of the Confession and the Concord.

If compared to the crucially-important Concord, the Confession of Sandomierz was not particularly significant. The Synod formally recognized it as a shared creed, but its status in Poland remained secondary to the confessions of faith of the single churches (except for Reformed churches). It had been rapidly attracting interest among the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed congregations since Bullinger sent it to Poland in 1567, recommending it as it was acknowledged ‘in France, England, Scotland, and other nations’. It was quickly adopted by the Reformed churches of Lesser Poland and preserved its official status throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Krzysztof Trecy, while translating its text, modified it in several aspects. He added an original preface in Polish and an appendix with the Confessio Saxonica’s article on the Eucharist as well as Theodore Beza’s considerations. The preface addressed the King in person and had a slight apologetical character as it refuted any accusations of rebellion and political dissent, stating that liturgical differences did not jeopardise the ‘unity of the faith’ (‘jedność wiary’). It also stated that the King’s formal acceptance of the Confession of Sandomierz would grant him political success. According to Jerzy Lehmann, the preface affirmed the monarch’s right to suppress any form of confessional dissent. This translation in Polish showed traces of Melanchthonian tendencies, as well as some remnants of the Catholic tradition; nevertheless, generally speaking, it was quite faithful to the original version. Despite his overall insignificant modifications, Trecy did not hesitate to send his translation to the original author of the Second Helvetic Confession.

The acceptance of the Concord on 13/14 April 1570 opened up a long process of formal ratification within the Lutheran Church and the Bohemian Brethren. On 18 May 1570, representatives of both confessions met in Poznań to thoroughly discuss the Concord. Once again, the articles on the Eucharist stirred a bitter controversy as Erazm Gliczner demanded that some amendments were made to the text. Other disputes involved the issue of liturgical vestments, still worn in the Lutheran Church but withdrawn in the other two. On 20 May, the representatives of the Brethren and of the Lutheran Church signed a version of the Concord with some amendments (‘consignationes’). This theological agreement, however, did not quell debates over the Concord. In October, a Lutheran Synod gathered in Poznań accused the Reformed Church of Cracow of not respecting its rules. Jan Łasicki warned Bullinger that the Lutherans were considering forsaking the agreement.

From a strictly political point of view, the Concord was equally unfruitful. In Sandomierz, the three confessions decided to take up their debate again at the Diet of Warsaw (16 April 1570). Oskar Halecki and Jan Pirożyński hypothesise that Protestants prepared a document which was supposed to be accepted by the Diet. The Sejm consultations, which began on 3 May, were dominated by the issue of the King’s marriage and the succession to the throne. However, on 13 May, as soon as confessional issues were brought up, the debate fired up. Under the nobility’s pressure, the King declared that nobody should be accused pro haeresi and confirmed his statement on 24 May. It is unclear whether the King accepted the Confession or not. According to Jan Łasicki dispatch to Johann Wolf, written immediately after the Diet, the King had declared his intention to formally approve it, but Łasicki was ultimately unaware of any royal sanction. Krzysztof Trecy claimed that the Confession of Sandomierz was ‘shown’ (‘exhibita’) to the King, which enraged the bishops. A few months later, Trecy declared that the King had received both the Concord and the Confession; however, there was ‘no response’ from him. It is presumable that the Confession was offered to the King in private during the Diet or shortly after the proceedings, but it is unlikely that it was formally accepted and ratified.

When on 7 July 1572 the King died, the nobility had to elect his successor. In an attempt to secure peace in a multi-confessional state, the nobility signed in January 1573 the Confederation of Warsaw, which guaranteed the noblemen the right to profess their own Christian confession regardless of the confession of the King. Despite several scholarly attempts to draw similarities between the Concord of Sandomierz and the Confederation of Warsaw, connections between these two documents are ultimately unproven. On the contrary, they seemed to pursue opposite goals: whereas the Concord was a theological agreement concerning mutual recognition of the confessions involved, intercommunion, and the edition of a common Corpus Doctrinae, the Confederation was a legal act trying to resolve Polish religious issues through the same principle put forward in the Peace of Augsburg, i.e. cuius regio, eius et religio.

Debates over the Concord of Sandomierz did not cease after the promulgation of the Confederation. The Concord was discussed at the synods held in Cracow (1571, 1573, 1576, 1578), Warsaw (1578), Piotrków (1578), Poznań (1582), and Włodzisław (1583). Polish Protestant churches eventually confirmed the Concord at the general Synod of in Toruń (1595), known as the largest Polish Protestant assembly in the sixteenth century. All pastors serving in Poland and Lithuania were supposed to hold a copy of the Confession and read it. Moreover, Paul Gericke, Lutheran pastor from Poznań and a zealous opponent of the Concord, was removed from office. Gericke’s affaire stands as testimony to the issues connected to the Concord’s reception in Poland. On 23 August 1595, at the Synod of Toruń, Gericke declared that he ‘was ordained according to the Augsburg Confession, and […] will stick to it; the Concord […] is a shapeless mixture and a Samaritan union’. Radical Lutherans repeatedly criticized the Concord. Erazm Gliczner, as the superintendent of the Lutheran Church of Greater Poland, had to deal with pastors such as Jakob Beinhard, Johann Enoch, and Paul Gericke, who lampooned the Concord and brought forward the Augustana in radical disagreement with the Confession of Sandomierz. After 1595, the Church in Pleszewo (Pleschen) became the center of Lutheran orthodoxy. In May 1578, the independent Lutheran churches of Vilnius decided to break with the Union. Gliczner himself abandoned his former support for the Concord, and from 1578 onwards he championed the Augustana. Although the Synod of Toruń required him to use the formulary included in the Concord during pastoral ordinations, he never did so. The Lutheran churches of Royal Prussia refused to sign the Concord in Sandomierz in 1570, and pastors such as Benedictus Morgenstern or Simon Musäus preached openly against it. In Royal Prussia, however, those members of local councils who sympathized with Philippism or the Reformed Church did support the Concord.

Relations between churches were strained by small everyday quarrels. When Reformed preacher Paweł Gilowski published an edition of a catechism (1579) and a postil (1584) with the word ‘Christian’ in the title, Lutheran churches perceived this as an insult. In his polemical treatises against the Jesuits, Reformed leader Andreas Volanus defended the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. The Bohemian Brethren was openly attacked by Morgenstern and Gericke. At the Synod of Brodnica (29 June 1597), the Brethren voiced its resentment towards its Lutheran critics. The Lutheran congregations of Pleszewo, Gnin and Poznań reintroduced Catholic vestments and images in church buildings. Enoch, though removed from his office in Poznań, served as pastor in Łagiewniki. Some pastors of the Brethren such as Stefan Petrasius, Maciej from Grodzisko, and Stanisław Scribonius, who were removed from office for disciplinary reasons, found refuge in the Lutheran churches. The process leading to the withdrawal of the Concord was complex, and confessionalisation in Europe (especially in the Holy Roman Empire) played a part in it. Although Polish Lutherans and Calvinists refused to subscribe to the Formula of Concord (1578) and the Harmony of Confessions (1583), they were strongly exposed to the pressure of all confessional fronts. Gliczner’s death (1603) was a symbolic moment, slowly leading to the disbanding of the union between Lutheran and Reformed churches; on the eve of the Thirty Years’ War, this was inevitable.

Nevertheless, the Concord was used as the basis for the coalition of Calvinists and the Brethren in Poland. Between 1615 and 1627, the Reformed churches of Greater Poland joined the ecclesiastical organisation of the Brethren, as confirmed in Ostroróg in 1627. The church of the Bohemian Brethren joined the Reformed provinces, although differences in theology, liturgy and church discipline were still profound. In 1632–1633, the Reformed churches launched a project for a new translation of the Bible, as well as for a new agenda to unify liturgy. However, the Synod of Włodawa (1634), where the churches of Lithuania and of Greater and Lesser Poland decided to bring together some features of their ecclesiastical discipline while granting a substantial degree of local independence in matters of liturgy. The partnership between the Brethren and the Reformed Church, firmly grounded in the Concord of Sandomierz, was so robust and durable that Polish historiography usually does not make any clear distinctions between the two confessions.