Jacob Palaeologus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Jacob Paleologus)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Antonio de' Massilara, Matteus Paleologus, (Bishop of Bosnia).
Jacob Palaeologus
Chiostown.jpg
Chios, birthplace of Jacob Palaelogus
Born c 1520
Chios, Greece
Died March 23, 1585
Rome
Nationality Genoese/Greek
Occupation Reformer, theologian, controversialist
Notable work(s) Disputatio Scholastica, Catechesis Christiana
Theological work
Notable ideas nonadorantism, religious toleration

Jacob Palaeologus, born Giacomo da Chio (Chios, c. 1520Rome, March 23, 1585) was a former Dominican friar who became an anti-Trinitarian. An indefegatible polemicist against both Calvinism and Papal Power, Palaeologus cultivated a wide range of high-placed contacts and correspondents in the imperial, royal and aristocratic households in Eastern Europe, and within Ottoman territories;[1] while formulating and propagating a radically heterodox version of Christianity, in which Jesus Christ was not to be invoked in worship, and where purported irreconcileable differences between Christianity, Islam and Judaism were rejected as spurious fabrications. Continually pursued by his many enemies, and repeatedly escaping through his many covert supporters; Palaeologus played an active role in the high politics of European religion and diplomacy over a period of twenty years, before loss of imperial favour led to his being surrendered to the Roman Inquisition and executed.

Life[edit]

Palaeologus was born on the Aegean island of Chios, just of the coast of Smyrna (modern Izmir in Turkey), of a Greek father and an Italian mother.[2] Chios had been, since 1347 under the rule of the republic of Genoa, although by the sixteenth century effective control was in the hands of the Giustiniani family. The young Giacomo attached himself to Vincenzo Giustiniani (later to be Master General of the Dominican Order), and followed him into the Dominicans. He trained at Dominican schools in Genoa and Ferrra, and later at the University of Bologna;[3] and it was in Italy that he adopted the name 'Jacob Palaeologus'; claiming kinship with the former Palaeologue emperors of Byzantium. In later life he repeatedly defended this claim; but no independent sources survive that support it.

the Grand Inquisitor, Michele Ghislieri (later Pope Pius V; condemned Palaeologus to death in absentia, and remained his lifelong enemy

By 1554, Palaeologus was back east in the Dominican convent of St Peter in Pera; the Latin Christian quarter of Istanbul, and it was here that he developed a lifelong adherence to the anti-trinitarian teachings of Michael Servetus, and composed a defence of Servetus's doctrines against the denunciations of Jean Calvin which had led to Servetus being condemned to death in Geneva in 1553. In 1556 Palaeologus returned home to Chios; and took an active role in supporting the secular Genoese commissioners and the agents of the Holy Roman Emperor against the authority of the bishop, which led to his being denounced to the Inquisition and arrested in Genoa in 1557.[4] In 1558, he escaped back to Istanbul, but was re-arrested in Ragusa, (modern Dubrovnik) and brought to the prison of the Roman Inquisition under the personal investigation of the Grand Inquisitor, Michele Ghislieri (later Pope Pius V[5]). For the rest of his life, Palaeologus was to maintain a fierce opposition to the Inquisition, and a particular enmity for Ghislieri.

Andreas Dudith, protected Palaeologus and employed his scholarship in support of the imperial arguments presented to the Council of Trent

However in 1559, when the Roman mob stormed the prisons of the Inquisition, Palaeologus was forcibly freed; and the evidence against him went up in flames - which did not stop the Inquisition Tribunal subsequently sentencing him to death in absentia in 1561, and burning him in effigy. Palaeologus escaped initially to France, where he applied to the papal legate Ippolito d'Este in 1562, in the hope of having the judgment of the Inquisition overturned; but without success.[6] Then, realising that his virulent denunciations of Calvinism rendered him unwelcome and unsafe amongst Reformed Protestants, in 1562 he offered his help to Andreas Dudith, then Bishop of Knin and the imperial representative at the Council of Trent. Palaeologus advised Dudith in the presentation to the Council of the imperial arguments for permitting Utraquism, the distribution of both bread and wine to the laity at Holy Communion; and in exchange Dudith attempted to have Palaeologus's conviction for heresy overturned by the Ecumenical Council,[7] stirring up in the process a major disruption to the Council's proceedings. Eventually in 1563, Palaeologus was granted imperial asylum in Prague; and when the new Emperor Maximilian II succeeded in 1564, Palaeologus advanced in the imperial favour. Following the example of his patron Andreas Dudith, Palaeologus renounced his religious vows, then making an advantageous marriage to the daughter of a leading Prague reformer; and in 1569 was proposed to the emperor as Utraquist Archbishop of Prague.[8] However, Ghislieri his sworn enemy, was now Pope, and eventually contrived to have Palaeologus expelled away from the imperial dominions to Poland in 1571, where he was re-united in Cracow with Andreas Dudith, who was now acting as the imperial representative to the Kingdom of Poland. Palaeologus was at last openly advancing anti-trinitarian views, but became embroiled in a bitter controversy with Gregory Paul and the Ecclesia Minor over the Polish anti-trinitarians' condemnation of Christian service in the military.[9]

Ferenc Dávid, leader of the anti-trinitarian church of Transylvania; imprisoned, he was defended by Palaeologus in a succession of works.

Having acquired firm enemies in Catholic Rome, Calvinist Geneva, and Racovian Cracow; Palaeologus sought in 1573 a more congenial home in the anti-trinitarian church of Transylvania, whose Unitarian status had been established under the rule of prince John II Sigismund Zápolya; and whose bishop Ferenc Dávid had since 1570 been corresponding with him and seeking his advice.[10] By 1573 this was a well-worn path for Italian reformers and radicals; already taken, amongst many others by Giorgio Biandrata and Francesco Stancaro, and Paleologus found a receptive audience for his teachings. The great, aristocratic households of Lithuania, Hungary, Transylvania and Poland prized Itallian culture and language, and most had sent their sons to Italian universities. Within their own extensive feudal estates they were able exercise substantial religious freedom - beyond the reach of Catholic bishops, Reformed city councils or the Inquisition; and many were sympathetic to radical Protestant ideas. Numbers of Italian-speaking religious exiles had been able to find ready employment in these aristocratic houses as physicians, chaplains, tutors, secretaries or political agents (and sometimes all of these at once). After an extended trip back to Istanbul and Chios (which the Turks had taken from the Genoese in 1566), intended in part to impress the Emperor Maximilian with his value and contacts, Palaeologus became rector of the Unitarian college at Kolosvar (modern Cluj) and the leading theoretrician of 'nonadorantism'; the strain of radical Protestantism that denied the validity of addressing Jesus in prayer.[11] However, following the death of John Sigismund in 1571, the succession to the principality of Transylvania had been disputed. Palaeologus supported the pro-imperial (and anti-trinitarian) candidacy of Gaspar Bekes, against the rival, Catholic candidate Stephen Bathory. When, following two failed uprisings, Bekes conceded defeat in 1575, Palaeologus had to leave, initially returning to Cracow where he promoted Maximilian's claim to the Polish throne, and then settling in Moravia.[12] Meanwhile Ferenc Dávid continued in practising and preaching nonadorantism, resulting in accusations of religious innovation, and his being deposed as leader of the Transylvainian Unitarian church, and dying in prison in 1579.[13] Palaeologus wrote a number of polemical works in support of the imprisoned Bishop, and attacking Fausto Sozzini for siding with David's accusers.[14]

Maximilan II died in 1576, and the new emperor Rudolph II was much less sympathetic to Palaeologus; and became convinced that he was spying for Turkey, and possibly Poland too. Palaeologus was arrested by the Bishop of Olomouc in December 1581, and although the accusations of spying could not be substantiated, a large body of heretical writings were found with him, and the Inquisition managed to have him extradited to Rome in May 1582.[15]

On February 19, 1583, Palaeologus was taken to the stake but abjured at the sight of the Portuguese Marani being burnt alive, and was permitted to return to his cell. The College of Cardinals argued for his death, but Pope Gregory XIII insisted that Palaeologus, if he would cooperate in publishing denunciations of his former anti-trinitarian opinions, would be more useful alive. However although Palaeologus was finally reconciled to the Catholic Church, he still refused to cooperate with Gregory's plan, and was beheaded on March 23, 1585.[16]

A wide variety of radical groups emerged from the 16th century Reformation, commonly characterised by a rejection of clerical authority, of the sacraments as essential instruments of God's Grace, and of the orthodox formulations of the Trinity. These groups were commonly dismissed by their opponents as Anabaptists (although by no means all practiced believers baptism),[17] a term that carried an implication of low social standing,[18] limited education,[19] excessive religious behaviour and the rejection of social and gender norms.[20] Jacob Palaeologus conformed to none of these stereotypes. His command of biblical texts was at least the equal of that of the best of his antagonists, his knowledge of patristics probably better than any.[21] He was formidably skilled in academic debate and wrote eloquently in high Latin style.[22] Moreover he was a strong critic of all forms of social subversion;[23] and with his education from the University of Bologna, he was readily at ease in the Italian-speaking and Italian-educated aristocratic houses of central and eastern Europe. Even amongst those who did not share his vision of radical Christianity there were many, like Vincenzo Giustiniani and Andreas Dudith,[24] who sympathised with his pleas for toleration; and his eloquent defence of free religious expression and debate in a Europe increasingly policed into tight bounds of conformity on one side or another. With the aid of his many contacts and correspondents,[25] he appeared able to travel at will across the boundaries dividing Catholic from Reformed, and Christian from Turk. All of which made him a dangerous man, and explains the extensive, determined and persistent efforts of his opponents to have him silenced.

Works[edit]

Symon Budny, collaborated with Palaeologus in developing the theology of non-adorantism, and published his works

Until 1571, Palaeologus claimed to be an Erasmian humanist, critical of the excesses of Papal Authority and of the Inquisition and sympathetic to some of the ideas of the Reformers, but still a faithful Catholic.[26] In this his public pose was similar to that of his patron, Andreas Dudith; and also to that of Dudith's own former patron, Cardinal Reginald Pole. All scholars are agreed, however, that Palaeologus's radical views in his subsequent published work are more representative of his earlier private opinions;[27] and that he may well have become covertly convinced by anti-trinitarian arguments as early as his stay in Pera in 1554-1555. It would accordingly have been unwise for him to publish much of his true opinions until moving to Transylvania. However, following the death of John Sigismund in 1571, permission for Palaeologus, as a foreigner, to print anti-trinitarian works in Transylvania was difficult to obtain; and most of his works of this period circulated in manuscript copies made by his students. From 1573 Ferenc David was attempting to circumvent increasing restrictions on printing in Transylvania by seeking to establish a printing press for radical Protestant works in Istanbul; and it is possible that Palaeologus's trip to Istanbul that year may have been partly related to this abortive project.[28]

It was only after 1578 that Symon Budny (who shared both Palaeologus's nonadorantist theology and his criticisms of the pacifism of the Polish 'Ecclesia Minor') was able to establish a printing press in Belarus; and many of Palaeologus's works were printed there from 1580 onwards, often in anonymous editions.

Michael Servetus, executed in Geneva in 1553, his antitrinitarian writings were the formative influence of Palaeologus's theology
  • Contra Calvinum pro Serveto

On Palaeologus's arrest, a large body of theological writings, by him and others, fell into the hands of the Roman Inquisition. Some of these works are not known from the Unitarian archives preserved in Cluj and Cracow; and selected extracts were published by the Vatican Library in the late 19th century. They propose a defence of Michael Servetus, and are believed to date from the 1550s.

  • De peccato originis
  • De providentia

Two treatises written around 1569 in the form of open letters to Pope Pius V; but intended for the Emperor Maximilian II. They criticise Calvinist teachings on predestination and original sin, also accusing the Inquisition of groundless persecution in its accusations and judgements against Palaeologus.[29]

  • Adversus proscriptionem Elisabethae Reginae Angliae

A comprehensive scholarly refutation of the bull Regnans in Excelsis by which Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth I of England in 1570.[30]

  • De discriminate Veteris et Novi Testamentum (1572)

Published in Cracow, in this treatise Palaeologus argues the absolute continuity and consistency of the Old and New Testaments. Key to this is his rejection of the standard Christian identification of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, with Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God. For Palaeologus, the incarnation is a fabrication of the Church, unfounded and unscriptural. Jesus in his earthly ministry had been only and completely the true Messiah of Israel, and as such fulfilled in all respects the messianic prophecies of the Mosaic Law; which accordingly remains (for the Jewish people at least) in full force; only requiring their recognition of Jesus as Messiah. The resurrected Jesus was now with Almighty God, and would return as a universal deliverer to preside over the rule of the saints. Palaeologus appeared to believe that the historic coming of the Jesus as Messiah necessarily abrogated the sacrificial priesthood of the Old Testament; nevertheless his understanding of the historic Jesus entirely as a Jewish figure led to accusations of Judaizing from his opponents.

  • De Tribus gentibus (1572)
  • Dissolutio de sacramentis
  • De Eucharistia,
  • De Baptismo
  • De resurrectione mortuorum (1572)
  • De bello sententia

These treatises circulated in collected manuscript form to Palaeologus's students from 1573 onwards, although they appear mostly to have been composed during his stay in Cracow, and two were published there separately. 'De bello sententia' is a refutation of the pacifism of Gregory Paul and the Polish Brethren. 'De Tribus gentibus' sets out Palaeologus's views on Judaism, Christianity and Islam; presenting three religious 'tribes' who each are capable of providing an equal access to salvation; as each transmit to their members, within their respective scriptures, God's saving grace of divine revelation (albeit that the interpretation of this revelation has, in all three traditions, been corrupted by a clerical elite). The three true tribes being: Jews following the Mosaic Law who accept Jesus as Messiah (in which category Palaeologus also includes Coptic, Syrian and Ethiopic Christians); anti-trinitarian Christians; and Muslims who recognise Jesus as a prophet. The treatise concludes with an eloquent defence of religious toleration. The other four treatises mainly seek to refute the claim of Christian churches to have unique access to salvation through participation in the benefits of the atoning death and resurrection of Christ; by baptism and by the sacrament of the Eucharist. For Palaeologus, there is no need for specific rites of atonement, and no essential ceremonies as instruments of salvation. Salvation requires only a free, pure and unqualified acceptance of God's offer of divine Grace; an acceptance that is only possible, in Palaeologus teaching, within the fellowship of a faithful community of believers where the revealed scriptures are regularly heard and shared.[31]

Maximillian II, Holy Roman Emperor from 1564 to 1576; Palaeologus's ultimate patron and protector in these years, and the intended audience for many of his works
  • Epistola de rebus Chii et Constantinopoli cume eo actis lectu digna.

An open letter from Palaeologus to one of his friends, but intended for the Emperor Maximilian II. It describes Palaeologus's trip to Constantinople and Chios in the spring of 1573, name-checking numerous high-ranking officials and personages who had received him.

  • Catechesis Christiana dierum duodecim (1574)

Palaeologus's most complete systematic statement of anti-trinitarian belief, published in Kolosvar, this draws extensively on the six unpublished treatises. It is structured within a satrirical imagined debate by which a Mexican Indian and a Jew seek an understanding of the Christian faith from a Reformed Protestant, a Lutheran and Counter-reformation Catholic, but only find squabbles and inconsistencies until their confusion is resolved by an anti-trinitarian.[32]

  • Disputatio Scholastica
  • Commentariaus in Apocylypsim
  • Theodoro Bezae pro Castellione et Bellio (1575)

Three works produced following Palaeologus retirement from the Kolosvar seminary. The 'Commentariaus in Apocylypsim' is in the form of a commentary on the Book of Revelation, but is actually another stinging attack on Pius V and the Inquisition, and is dedicated to his old friend and original mentor Vincenzo Giustiniani. Otherwise, Palaeologus offers a defence published in Cracow of Sebastian Castellio (and also 'Martin Bellio' Castellio's literary alias), against the criticisms of the Calvinist leader, Theodore Beza. The 'Disputatio Scholastica' is acknowledged as Palaeologus major literary achievement, a masterpiece of exuberant high renaissance latinity.[33] The setting is another imagined satirical debate; only this time the protagonists are named religious authorities on both the Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian sides, who have been called together by Almighty God to resolve before the whole world (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) their various claims about the nature of Christ. The treatise is unfinished, but it appears to have been intended to show that the leading modern Trinitarians; John Calvin and Boniface VIII, are not only unjustified in their arguments, but also culpably misrepresent the ancient predecessors to whom they appeal.

  • An omnes ab uno Adamo descenderint
  • Confutatio vere et solida Iudicii Ecclesiarum Polinicarum de causa Francisci Davidis.
  • Defensio Francisci Davidis in negotio de non invocando Jesu Christi in precibus.
  • Ad scriptum fratrum Racoviensium de bello et judiciis forensibus Responsio.

These treatises were all printed by Symon Budny in 1580; and mainly record the defence offered by Palaeologus to Ferenc David against the charges of religious innovation in teaching 'nonadorantism'; recording also Palaeologus's criticism of the role of Fausto Sozzini in the sorry affair. The 'Ad scriptum fratrum Racoviensium de bello et judiciis forensibus Responsio' is Palaeologus's rejoinder to the response of Gregory Paul, 'Adversus Jacobi Palaeologi de bello sententiam Responsio', itself a reply to Palaeologus treatise 'Defensio verae sententiae de magistratu politico' of 1572 on the obligation of the Christian to provide military service and secular allegiance to the rightful civil authorities. In the treatise 'An omnes ab uno Adamo descenderint' Palaeologus refutes the fundamental assumptions of the doctrine of Original Sin; arguing that all humans cannot descended from a single individual, and hence that there cannot be a strict transmission of inherited sin to all humanity.

Teachings[edit]

Thedore Beza, succeeded John Calvin as the leader of the Reformed church of Geneva; whose Trinitarian theology Palaeologus sought to expose as a Satanic perversion of the true Gospel

In common with all 16th century anti-trinitarians, Palaeologus rejected three fundamental propositions of traditional Christianity as fabrications, unfounded in the scriptures. These are:

  • Original Sin; the doctrine that through the sin of Adam all humanity is irretrievably lost to sin, and can only attain salvation through divine Grace operating through the sacraments of baptism and holy communion.
  • Predestination; the doctrine that the eternal destination of every person to Heaven or Hell has been determined from the beginning of time by God's sovereign choice.
  • The Trinity; the doctrine that within the unity of Almighty God, there are three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit; equal and pre-existent outside the bounds of time and space; and that the only way to salvation for all humanity is through the atonement for sin achieved by the crucifixion and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God.

Palaeologus held these propositions to be frauds, perpetrated on the faithful under the prompting of Satan as devices by which the clergy might establish and maintain control; and he sees Calvinism as presenting these false doctrines in their most developed form,[34] although the same doctrines are similarly exploited by the Inquisition and by institutions of control in other churches. Palaeologus appears to believe that counterpart fabricated doctrines may function to maintain the dominance of a clerical elite in Judaism and Islam; if all three religions were to apply a critical appraisal to their traditions, then substantial common ground would be found, and Satan's design to undermine scriptural revelation would be confounded.[35] But in any case, in Palaeologus view, Jews and Muslims cannot be expected to respond fully to Jesus as Messiah and Prophet so long as Christians continue to worship him as God.

Salvation, for Palaeologus comes only through faith, which he understands as being achieved fides ex auditu[36] (Romans 10:17), through hearing and sharing the revealed word of God in the congregation of the faithful. Faith is assailed by sin, which Palaeologus understands as wrong intention rather than as wrong action; sin arises from seeking something that revealed scripture shows ought not to be desired.[37]

Palaeologus emphasises that all mankind has free will and God offers to all a free choice of blessedness. Nevertheless, individual humans in a state of nature do not have the capability to appreciate or comprehend the full dimensions of the choice that is on offer, but can only grasp at fragments of true blessedness in the form of material rewards(possessions, power); or in the case of noble pagans, in the perfection of the individual soul.[38] Full blessedness can only be apprehended through lifelong participation in the fellowship of faithful believers; where that faith is grounded in the Grace of divine revelation.[39] For Palaeologus the religious life of a Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) congregation is a school of blessedness for its members; by which they may become prepared to respond to God's offer of salvation in full freedom. But that is conditional on those congregations rightly understanding and sharing God's revelation in the text of scripture. Since the instrument of God's Grace for salvation is identified with scriptural revelation, then those who fabricate false revelation or who twist the understanding of true revelation are, for Palaeologus, the agents of Satan.[40]

Criticism of the Polish Brethren[edit]

Palaeologus had encountered the Polish Brethren of the ecclesia minor in Cracow, and much of his anti-trinitarian teaching accords with theirs, while being more systematically expressed; and much more learned in presentation. He departed from their doctrines and practices, however, in two key respects; which proved the occasion for bitter controversy. Nevertheless, although Palaeologus perceived the arguments of his Polish opponents as Satanic perversions, this did not lead him to seek their suppression or that of their supporters. Just as hearing the revealed scriptures provides for Palaeologus an assured route to truth; so the exposure and confounding of error in free and open debate ensures the defeat of the Master of Lies.[41]

Fausto Sozzini, leading exponent of the theology of the Polish Brethren; attacked by Palaeologus both for advocating pacifism, and for his failure to support Ferenc David

Nonadorantism[edit]

Although the Polish Brethren rejected the doctrine of the crucifixion as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of humanity, nevertheless they regarded Christ's sinless death and passion as promoting a saving faith through moral example, and Christ's resurrection as according him the status of Mediator for the faithful before the throne of God;[42] and accordingly retained both a commemoration of the Lord's Supper and the invocation of Jesus by name in prayer.[43] As formalised in the Catechism of George Schomann published in 1574, the church in Rakow retained many of the elements of trinitarian worship and doctrine, but re-expressed in accordance with anti-trinitarian principles.[44] For Palaeologus this was wholly unacceptable,[45] as he understood the task of anti-trinitrarians in the present age to be "witnesses of the truth" (Revelation chapter 10),[46] standing in open opposition to a world given temporarily over to the dominance of Satan. In due time the truth must triumph and Christ would return bring in the rule of the saints;[47] but Almighty God could not allow that to happen while those saints were endowing Christ with the attributes of divinity. The veneration of Christ within the doctrine of the Trinity was, for Palaeologus, "Satan's design" to extend the period of his rule and stall the promised parousia, by corrupting the church into a form where Almighty God, in his absolute individual oneness, must turn away from it;[48] and true anti-trinitarians must not be compromised with it in any way.

Pacifism and utopian egalitarianism[edit]

The Polish Brethren, like almost all anti-trinitarians, held that the Grace of salvation could only be achieved through full participation in the fellowship of faithful believers; and they consequently sought to reinforce this by separating themselves from the sinful world in an exclusive egalitarian community; in which secular distinctions of power and possession did not apply, and which resisted the demands of civil allegiance and military service.[49] For Palaeologus, seeking the security offered by secular power, possessions and status was a valid, if fragmentary and inadequate, response to the universal human need for blessedness; and accordingly such motivations were not sinful in themselves; nor should believers reject distinctions of secular power and possession amongst one another, although distinctions of religious power and possessions were to be condemned. Palaeologus strongly resisted any suggestion that full participation in the fellowship of believers necessarily excludes either full participation in civic rights and allegiances, or the obligation to defend the legitimate civil order by military force; moreover he unreservedly condemned the practice of separation from the world, especially as this was enforced through the sanction of excommunication, a sanction that must necessarily deprive those subjected to it of eternal life.[50]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1125. 
  2. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. VIII. 
  3. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. VIII. 
  4. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. IX. 
  5. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. X. 
  6. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. X. 
  7. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XI. 
  8. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XII. 
  9. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XIV. 
  10. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XIII. 
  11. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XVI. 
  12. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XV. 
  13. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1130. 
  14. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XVI. 
  15. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XVI. 
  16. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XVII. 
  17. ^ Cameron, Euan (1991). The European Reformation. Clarendon Press. p. 320. 
  18. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1087. 
  19. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XXVIII. 
  20. ^ MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2003). Reformation; Europe's House Divided 1490 -1700. Allen Lane. p. 167. 
  21. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1138. 
  22. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XLVII. 
  23. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1149. 
  24. ^ MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2003). Reformation; Europe's House Divided 1490 -1700. Allen Lane. p. 263. 
  25. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XXXII. 
  26. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XII. 
  27. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. X. 
  28. ^ Burchill, Christopher J (1989). The Heidelberg Antitrinitarians. Editions Valentin Koerner. p. 110. 
  29. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XII. 
  30. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XIII. 
  31. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1124. 
  32. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1152. 
  33. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XLVII. 
  34. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XXVII. 
  35. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XXXVII. 
  36. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XIII. 
  37. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1152. 
  38. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1151. 
  39. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1151. 
  40. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XXXVII. 
  41. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XLVII. 
  42. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1131. 
  43. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1168. 
  44. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1147. 
  45. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1124. 
  46. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XIX. 
  47. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XX. 
  48. ^ Szczucki, Lech (1994). Disputatio Scholastica: Iacobus Palaeologus; edited by Juliusz Domanski and Lech Szczucki. Bibliotheca Unitariorum. p. XVII. 
  49. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1137. 
  50. ^ Williams, George H (2000). The Radical Reformation 3rd edn. Truman State University Press. p. 1139. 

Further reading[edit]