The reformation in Poland

by Paul Fox

4. The calling of a National Synod to settle the existing religious differences and troubles.

The Pope was astonished at the request, and refused to sanction the suggested reforms absolutely. To the fourth point he acceded, but never really intended to keep his promise.[147]

The nature of the proceedings and the decisions of the Diet of 1555 and the proposed religious reforms for which the Polish king asked papal sanction caused the Apostolic See a good deal of concern, and led the Vatican to send at once Louis Alois Lippomano, bishop of Verona, as special legate to Poland. From this time on the Apostolic See kept a special envoy in Poland constantly to watch the course of events. Lippomano was a man without tact, and not at all particular in his choice of means to accomplish his objects. His reputation had preceded him, and his arrival in Poland in October, 1555, stirred up the Protestant element in the population to great indignation. The king received him cordially. But owing to his lack of tact, Lippomano soon lost the king’s favor, and won the ill-will even of good Catholics.[148]

To mend matters, the legate started to exert his influence first on those nearest to the king. He wrote a letter to Nicholas Radziwill the Black, palatine, chancellor, and grand marshal of Lithuania, the most powerful magnate in the Grand Duchy, an ardent Calvinist, whose zeal contributed greatly to the spread of Protestantism in Poland as well as in the Grand Duchy. In this letter Lippomano endeavored to win and convert Radziwill to the Church of Rome. Radziwill, however, could not be won back to the Roman Church. He replied, exposing the unfavorable character of the Catholic clergy, and let this correspondence be published. The publication of this correspondence made Lippomano still more unpopular in Poland, and changed completely whatever friendly attitude the king may have had toward him.[149]

Having failed at court, Lippomano turned now to the bishops to arouse their loyalty and to rekindle their zeal. But here, too, he failed to meet with better success. Many of the bishops were ready to capitulate and to negotiate with the szlachta in order to save their bishoprics and their incomes. Some of them, like Drohojowski, bishop of Kuyavia, and Uchański, bishop of Chełm, were actually favorably disposed toward the reform movement. Others, again, like Zebrzydowski, bishop of Cracow, owing to past association with the reformers, were under constant suspicion. The only men among the Polish hierarchy upon whom the nuncio could rely were the Primate of Poland, Dzierzgowski, and the bishop of Warmya, Hosius; and of these two the primate had to be largely discounted as he had neither the learning nor the ability to be of any help in such a difficult situation. The legate had, therefore, no easy sailing to find support for his plans among the Polish bishops, or to keep them from associating with heretics.[150]

Seeing the fruitlessness of his efforts among the bishops, he turned to the lower clergy, visiting churches, holding conferences with the members of the cathedral chapters and the parish priests. Here he met with better response and greater success. He discovered that the lower clergy were both more loyal and more concerned about the real needs of the church and the remedies to correct existing evils.[151]

In this connection it is of interest to note the independence of the Polish bishops as regards their attitude toward Rome. A provincial synod under the presidency of the papal nuncio was called to meet at Łowicz on September 6, 1556. The Polish bishops wanted to confer in corpore, without the presence of the nuncio, and then to present to him the results of their conference and to get his opinion. The Polish bishops were opposed to permitting the nuncio to exert undue influence on their deliberations, and in this attitude they were supported even by Hosius, the one Polish prelate upon whom the nuncio counted most. The nuncio, however, would not consent to any such procedure in the deliberations. The disagreement became so acute that Bishop Hosius had to act as mediator between his colleagues and the legate. Since the latter would not yield, the bishops finally agreed to confer together in his presence.[152]

If the results of the Diet of 1555 made the Apostolic See vigilant as regards Poland, it is not to be wondered at; for such vigilance was imperative. The Protestants were now more active than ever. The Calvinists of Little Poland energetically developed their work in all the churches occupied by them before the Diet of 1555 and acknowledged by the Diet as theirs in the royal cities, particularly Cracow and Posen, and even in the territories of the royal domain wherever Protestants were found. They founded schools at Pińczów, Secynin, and Koźminek. They were holding frequent synods, and were strengthening and perfecting their internal organization.[153] If the Calvinists of Little Poland were active, so were also the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland. The number of their followers increased to such an extent that by 1557 a separate senior or superintendent for Great Poland was appointed by the central administrative authority in Moravia.[154] Moreover, to counteract Lippomano’s activity, the Polish Protestants invited to Poland two distinguished reformers, Francis Lismanini and John Łaski. Both of these arrived in the country toward the end of 1556. The first, being a foreigner, the Catholics succeeded in having banished from the country by order of the king, though not until after a good deal of effort.[155] The second, however, being a distinguished native, could not be banished. So he stayed, and worked faithfully, though fruitlessly, for a union of the Lutherans with the other two already united Protestant bodies, the Calvinists of Little Poland and the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland.[156]

When the new Diet, called for November 25, 1556, assembled in Warsaw, the Protestants were well represented in it. They came out in full force to counterbalance the presence and any possible influence of the papal nuncio on the deliberations of the Diet. The king, being in need of money for a war which was threatening with the Knights of the Sword, had to court the favor of the Chamber in order to get it to vote the necessary contributions for the conduct of the war. The pressing problems before the new Diet were, then, those of defense and of religion. According to the rescript of the preceding Diet, the problem of “egzekucji praw,” or of the execution of laws, a matter similar to the English “quo warranto,” which had come up for consideration at that time and had been postponed until the next Diet, was to be taken up and considered first. However, it was decided to lay this problem aside again until a more opportune time, owing to the more pressing question of adequate finances for the conduct of the coming war. The Chamber was ready to vote the necessary contribution, on condition, however, of a satisfactory settlement of the existing religious differences. Thus the religious question again became the most important, and on its solution depended the success of any program for a proper defense of the country.[157] But no satisfactory solution of the religious problem was in sight. The Chamber, therefore, proposed that, in case a better adjustment of the religious differences was impossible at this time, the decisions of 1555 be continued in force and be more strictly observed. The spiritual lords were most reluctant to give their assent to this proposal. The Chamber, again, threatened that it would not otherwise vote the necessary funds for the conduct of the war. Hence, the king issued an edict, dated January 13, 1557, continuing the religious settlement of 1555 in force during his absence from the country, with the added provision that should anyone in any way violate those decisions, the king would regard such violations as an offense against his person and against his government, would judge the offenders in the king’s courts, and would punish them according to law.[158] Thereupon the Chamber voted the needed contribution.

By this edict the king hoped to placate both of the contending parties. As it happened, the edict did not really satisfy either party. Consequently it was never made public, was not enforced, and was finally recalled. However, if it had been made public, and if it had been enforced, it would have done away with ecclesiastical jurisdiction; for from now on cases of heresy, being regarded as an offense against the king’s person, would have been adjudicated in the king’s courts rather than by ecclesiastical tribunals.[159]