













































Senior sophister essay cover sheet


 

22 
 

 

Becoming Begrudgingly Tolerant 
Analyzing the Significance of the Emergence and Development of 
Unitarianism in the Transylvanian Principality during the Mid-
Sixteenth Century    
 
 
Andrew Wood-Martin 
Trinity College Dublin 
 
 
Abstract  
The concept of religious tolerance and toleration has been the subject of much scholarly 
discussion for centuries. In the wake of the Reformation, however, it became a much more 
practical concept, with Europeans living next door to people perceived as heretics. A 
certain level of tolerance had to be achieved or else the entire continent would fall into a 
state of mass violence and disarray. Religious tolerance as a social practice was tested to its 
limits in the principality of Transylvania during the mid-sixteenth century. The 
multiconfessional state was home to five competing denominations and somehow managed 
to establish and maintain a certain level of peace in the region during the age in which 
religious warfare was rife throughout the continent. This article analyzes the unique 
emergence of the Unitarian, or anti-Trinitarian, confession in the Transylvanian 
principality, in order to answer broader questions on the concept of religious tolerance in 
early modern Europe. After initially outlining current thinking on the concept of religious 
tolerance, it describes the unique emergence of Unitarianism in Transylvania, aided greatly 
by political rulers. Challenging the idea of Transylvania being a haven for religious freedom 
in this time period, the article addresses contemporary debates surrounding the 
emergence of Unitarianism, namely in the 1567 Debrecen Reformed Synod. It also analyzes 
legal actions taken to sanction multiconfessionalism in the region, before ultimately 
situating this study within the broader context of religious tolerance in early modern 
Europe. 
 
 
Article 
Introduction 
Amid the so-called age of religious wars, the principality of Transylvania, located on the 
periphery of both the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire, appeared to be paving 
the way towards a more peaceful and civilized Europe.1 For years, many historians have 
championed the region as a haven for religious tolerance, enacting policies of co-habitation 
among different religions that would arrive in other European nations centuries later.2 

 
1 As well as being located on the periphery of these two great empires, the princes of Transylvania also paid 
annual tribute to the Sublime Porte. 
2 Mihály Balázs, Thomas Cooper, and Judit Gellérd, “Tolerant Country—Misunderstood Laws. Interpreting 
Sixteenth-Century Transylvanian Legislation Concerning Religion,” The Hungarian Historical Review 2 (2013): 
87. 



 

23 
 

 

During the mid-sixteenth century, the principality found itself in the unique position of 
being a multiconfessional state.3 Originally dominated by Roman Catholic and Eastern 
Orthodox communities, the Reformation saw a profound change in the region’s internal 
religious loyalties, with the vast majority of the population converting to one form of 
Protestantism or another in just a few short years.4 Hence, the myriad of conflicting 
theologies living in one area could have resulted in widespread violence, but this was not 
the case. Throughout the early modern period, rulers of the region continued to make it 
possible for the different confessions to coexist, thus leading many local historians to make 
the case for Transylvania as the birthplace of religious tolerance.5 This claim, however, has 
been challenged with recent thinking around the idea of tolerance and “toleration” in early 
modern Europe. The Unitarian Church emerged during the mid-sixteenth century and has 
been at the heart of many arguments for Transylvanian tolerance. The confession held to 
the doctrine of anti-Trinitarianism—the belief that God was, in nature, one single entity—
and was instantly rejected almost everywhere in early modern Europe, with the notable 
exceptions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Transylvanian principality, 
enjoying specific legal status in the latter.6 Unitarianism, which was ultimately expelled 
from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1658, has endured in Transylvania to this 
day.7 
 
This article assesses the significance of the emergence of Unitarianism in the Transylvanian 
principality, in order to discuss broader thinking surrounding religious tolerance in early 
modern Europe. It first outlines current thinking around the concept of tolerance and 
“toleration,” before detailing the emergence of the Unitarian Church in Transylvania during 
the mid-sixteenth century. The article offers a close study of three Reformed synods, which 
all took place in the latter half of the 1560s, as a way of analyzing the opposition faced by 
anti-Trinitarianism in the principality. These texts are crucial to understanding the context 
of the time, as there are very few surviving texts that track the emergence of Unitarianism 
in Transylvania and the reaction to it. The synods also help provide a deeper understanding 
of the practical nature of religious freedom and tolerance in early modern Transylvania. 
Furthermore, they exemplify that the Reformed Church was extremely reluctant to be 
tolerant towards the Unitarian Church. Finally, this article discusses a variety of laws that 
were enacted in Transylvania; some of these laws were key in securing the Unitarianism’s 
status as an official religion in the principality, while others focused on restricting its 
influence. Ultimately, this article serves as an interesting commentary on the nature of 
Transylvania’s alleged tolerance in the mid-sixteenth century, and indeed on the nature of 
tolerance in early modern Europe. 

 
3 Most states in early modern Europe were loyal to one particular confession, following the legal 
interpretation of the 1555 Peace of Augsburg that came to be understood by the tag “cuius regio, eius religio.” 
4 Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism in Transylvania, England, and America (Boston: Beacon Press, 
1952), 43. 
5 Balázs, Cooper, and Gellérd, “Tolerant Country,” 87.  
6 The denunciation of anti-Trinitarianism in the Christian tradition dates to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 
CE, where Arius’ Christology—claiming that the Son did not exist in eternity with the Father—was 
condemned as heresy. 
7 Mihály Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” in A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, eds. Howard 
Louthan and Graeme Murdock (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 171. 



 

24 
 

 

 
The Concept of Religious “Tolerance” in Early Modern Europe 
Previous thinking around the concept of religious tolerance tied its development to 
“Enlightenment” thinking. It was considered by Whig historians as an abstract ideal, 
developed by the West in order to combat the barbaric “savagery” of post-Reformation, 
pre-Enlightenment society.8 Religious violence was considered in this interpretation of 
history as the natural impulse of a primitive mind, which had not yet evolved to a better 
way of thinking.9 The Western narrative of religious tolerance, then, considered it as an 
emerging phenomenon, judging societies through an evolutionary lens, as they progress 
from primitivism, which was marked by religious fanaticism and violence, to a more 
advanced, harmonious way of living. 
 
Benjamin Kaplan has challenged this view in recent years. Kaplan confronts the concept of 
the “rise of tolerance” as an enlightened, Western innovation, exposing it as a myth.10 
Kaplan focuses on de-romanticizing the concept, seeing tolerance less as an ideal of the 
post-Enlightenment elite and more as a gritty compromise practiced by everyday citizens. 
The legacy of the Reformation had left many communities bitterly divided by faith, with 
millions of Europeans forced to live among perceived heretics in their own village. As 
Kaplan describes it, “millions of Europeans experienced the divisions in an intensely 
intimate, local way.”11 Societies in early modern Europe, particularly multiconfessional 
ones, needed to respond to the newfound religious pluralism in a pragmatic way, in order 
to avoid internal rupture and violence. Thus, while the concept of “tolerance” was 
discussed by the scholars of the day, it was a much more mundane, practical experience for 
many European citizens. This is particularly evident in the region of Transylvania, which 
was under threat from the Ottoman Empire to the south. It is therefore vital not to project 
twenty-first century notions of human rights and personal freedom onto sixteenth-century 
acts of compromise with one’s greatest enemy.  
 
As a case study, this article assesses the development of Unitarianism in Transylvania 
according to Kaplan’s understanding of tolerance and toleration in early modern Europe. 
With this in mind, it will separate the distinctly modern concept of “tolerance” from the 
early modern social practice of “toleration.” “Tolerance,” according to Kaplan, denotes the 
abstract concept of religious freedom. It has been viewed through early modern history as 
an emerging trend in society, developed from the minds of visionary, forward-thinking 
intellectuals and rulers who argued for mutual acceptance.12 “Toleration,” on the other 
hand, refers to the social practices of ordinary early modern Europeans, begrudgingly 
adopted in order to achieve a peaceful coexistence with their fellow citizens of different 
faiths. Toleration is not a glamorous ideal conceived by the elite but rather an act of 

 
8 Benjamin Kaplan, Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe 
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 2. 
9 For more criticism on Whig interpretations of history and religious tolerance, see the writings of British 
historian Herbert Butterfield. Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (New York: Norton & 
Co., 1965). 
10 Kaplan, Divided by Faith, 4-5. 
11 Kaplan, Divided by Faith, 4-5. 
12 Kaplan, Divided by Faith, 8. 



 

25 
 

 

necessity practiced among the general populace of multiconfessional communities: “So 
defined, religious toleration required no ‘principle of mutual acceptance,’ much less an 
embrace of diversity for its own sake, as our modern concept of tolerance presumes.”13 
 
Origins of Unitarianism 
Unitarianism, or anti-Trinitarianism, emerged in Transylvania in the 1560s, as a product of 
the impulses of Biblicism promoted during the Reformation. In this era, public debates 
were commonplace, with the topic of religion often inspiring lively discourse.14 The 
doctrine of anti-Trinitarianism thus came about following disputes within the Reformed 
community over conflicting understandings of what the Bible taught about the Trinity. The 
conviction that God was one single entity and not three persons within one Godhead—
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—had been considered the utmost form of heresy since the 
fourth century, as it struck the very center of orthodox Christian belief—that of the deity of 
Jesus Christ. Unitarians initially held the belief that Jesus was certainly inspired by God in 
his moral teachings, but that he was also, ultimately, merely human. It is important to note, 
though, that within the Unitarian Church a diverse range of perspectives on Jesus’s nature 
emerged, with certain “adorantist” groups invoking Christ in public worship and other 
“non-adorantist” groups considering this practice heretical. While this doctrine was 
naturally met with an intense resentment by some, others warmly welcomed it. This 
caused a sharp divide among the Hungarian Reformed Church, provoking Trinitarians to 
gather at synods to clarify their position on “the great mystery of God.”15 
 
The effectiveness of the emergence of the Unitarian Church in Transylvania can also be 
linked to the careers of particular individuals. Figures such as Dr. Giorgio Biandrata can 
certainly be regarded as highly influential, as he was crucial in the development and 
dissemination of anti-Trinitarian theology and literature surrounding this theology in 
Transylvania during the mid-sixteenth century. Biandrata was an Italian physician who 
spent a year in Geneva within the Italian-speaking community. He developed an anti-
Trinitarian theology and moved to Poland as physician to the dowager queen, Bona Sforza, 
of the ruling house of Milan. He then moved to Transylvania in 1563 as court physician to 
Sforza’s daughter, Isabella, and her husband, János Szapolyai. The work of Italian 
theologians Lelio and Fausto Sozzini must also not go unnoticed. Uncle and nephew, 
respectively, the Sozzinis were early proponents of anti-Trinitarian theology. Their 
theology, known as Socinianism, spread throughout the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 
in the sixteenth century and was also embraced by the Transylvanian principality. 
 
One cannot understate the impact Ferenc Dávid and János Zsigmond Szapolyai had on the 
growth of the movement in the principality.16 Dávid was the first leader of the Unitarian 

 
13 Kaplan, Divided by Faith, 8. Along with “toleration,” many scholars choose to use terms like “religious 
pluralism” in order to distinguish between the two terms. 
14 Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, 31. 
15 Graeme Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism in Transylvania,” in A Companion to Multiconfessionalism in the 
Early Modern World, ed. Thomas Max Safley, (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 410. 
16 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 176-177. Sozzini drew his anti-Trinitarian convictions from his interpretation 
of John’s Gospel, claiming that the text only referred to Jesus as logos in a metaphorical sense, as he was a 
messenger of God. Jesus was therefore, in Sozzini’s eyes, not eternal. However, it is important to note that, in 



 

26 
 

 

Church in Transylvania. Originally opposed to anti-Trinitarian theology, the former Roman 
Catholic priest, then a crucial figure in the Lutheran and Reformed churches, ultimately 
became convinced of the doctrine in the 1560s.17 He agreed upon a Christology that was 
originally developed by Sozzini and, over the next few years, published a series of 
Hungarian texts to defend his interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Like all Reformers, 
Dávid believed that a correct interpretation of Scripture was at the heart of reform.18 As 
well as publishing material, the preacher also engaged in lively theological debates with his 
former Trinitarian Reformed colleagues.19 His position as the court preacher of János 
Zsigmond Szapolyai, the then ruler of Transylvania, was crucial in solidifying the 
confession’s status in the region. Yet, while his involvement was undoubtedly important in 
the development of the Unitarian Church, Szapolyai’s political influence was paramount to 
the denomination’s emergence and survival in the early modern period.  
 
Szapolyai’s Role in the Development of Unitarianism in Transylvania 
In order to discuss how Unitarianism was able to grow with such strength and vigor 
throughout Transylvania, it is firstly important to understand the region’s socio-political 
context in the mid-sixteenth century. Szapolyai, the only Unitarian ruler of Transylvania in 
the sixteenth century, assumed leadership from his father when the region was in a period 
of great political uncertainty. With the Roman Catholic Habsburg Monarchy to the west and 
its Muslim Ottoman neighbors to the south, the prince sought to cement Transylvania as an 
independent state.20 Mihály Balázs comments on how Szapolyai “attempted to identify 
Transylvania as a haven for reform in sharp distinction from his Catholic Habsburg 
rivals.”21 Thus, in his attempt to secure this autonomy, it was crucial for the prince to 
introduce a policy of confessional pluralism among his citizens, both to promote his own 
authority and also because any alternative would surely result in widespread chaos and 
violence. This image of a region in which, by the 1570s, more than four confessions were 
legally recognized, does indeed appear to be a great example of religious tolerance in early 
modern Europe. However, Szapolyai’s primary motivation was to maintain internal 
security in the region, in order to establish Transylvania as an autonomous state.22 
Kaplan’s theory would suggest that Transylvania was, therefore, similar to many other 
states in early modern Europe, as their chief concern was to maintain political stability and 
social peace within the region at all costs and were consequently forced to accept some 
degree of religious toleration. This challenges the claims of many historians throughout the 
early modern period who praised the region for its tolerance in a progressive, modern-day, 
ideological context.23  

 
the denomination’s early years of development, there was a consensus among clergy that Christ was still to be 
adored in worship. This would change dramatically by the 1570s, when further division emerged within the 
Unitarian community surrounding their Christology. 
17 Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, 28-33. 
18 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 178. 
19 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 178. 
20 Márta Fata, “The Kingdom of Hungary and Principality of Transylvania,” in A Companion to the Reformation 
in Central Europe, eds. Howard Louthan and Graeme Murdock (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 93. 
21 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 182. 
22 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 182. 
23 Balázs, Cooper, and Gellérd, “Tolerant Country,” 87. 



 

27 
 

 

 
When discussing the emergence of Unitarianism in the Transylvanian principality, a strong 
challenge to the region’s alleged embrace of religious tolerance can be seen in the bitter 
opposition the Unitarian denomination faced from other confessions in the region. While 
the Church was offered legal protection by János Zsigmond Szapolyai and the 
Transylvanian diet in 1568, this did not indicate any form of widespread support and 
acceptance from Trinitarian communities, as the various Reformed synods from the latter 
half of the decade clearly demonstrate.  
 
Opposition to Anti-Trinitarianism at the Reformed Synods in Debrecen (1567), 
Nagyvárad (1568), and Szikszó (1569)  
 

Here is the Lord’s command that the things planted, founded and built up by the 
devil and the Antichrist, i.e., false doctrines, opinions, heresies, traditions, and the 
inventions of men, must be removed and extirpated from the bosom of the church as 
dung and vile sins.24 

 
The rapid increase in Unitarian believers in Transylvania, fueled by the charismatic leaders 
Ferenc Dávid and Giorgio Biandrata, provoked a passionate and urgent response from the 
Hungarian Reformed Church. In a direct response to the emergence of the confession, the 
Reformed Church convened synods on numerous occasions and in different locations to 
discuss the Trinity and confirm their own theological convictions.25 Upon closer 
examination of these synods, it becomes undoubtedly clear that the Reformed Church had 
no desire to tolerate the emerging Unitarian movement and, beyond that, were reluctant 
that any religious rights be extended to Unitarians. 
 
The 1567 Reformed Synod that took place in the Hungarian city of Debrecen, a key center 
for Calvinist reform, remains one of the most pivotal and longest synods in the history of 
the Reformed Church, as the documents that emerged from the synod formed the doctrinal 
basis of the Reformed Church in Hungary. The synod convened on February 24, 1567, 
bringing together pastors and clergymen from seventeen archdeaconries of Hungary. 
Members of the Transylvanian Unitarian Church were also invited to the synod but did not 
attend.26 Also present was Péter Melius Juhász, a Reformed theologian and superintendent 
in the Hungarian Church, who engaged in a number of debates with Dávid about the 
Trinity.27 

 
24 “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in 
English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., vol. 3, 1567-1599 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage 
Books, 2015), 12.  
25 “Confession of Varadiensis/Nagyvárad (1569),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in 
English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., vol. 3, 1567-1599 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage 
Books, 2015), 161. 
26 “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 1. 
27 Mihály Balázs, Early Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism (1566-1571): From Servet to Palaeologus (Baden-
Baden: E�ditions V. Koerner, 1996), 20. Balázs comments further on how these debates between Melius and 
Dávid are very important, as they are some of the only surviving documents from the time period that trace 
Dávid’s progression towards anti-Trinitarianism in the mid-sixteenth century.  



 

28 
 

 

 
Doctrinally, the synod is significant as it adopted Heinrich Bullinger’s Second Helvetic 
Confession (1566), establishing it as the Hungarian Reformed Church’s official 
confession.28 Throughout the proceedings of the synod, the Reformed Church, in addition 
to considering their official doctrine, outlined vehement opposition of anti-Trinitarianism. 
A significant number of the discussions were specifically concerned with the growing 
influence of Unitarian believers in Transylvania, who were labelled by members of the 
Reformed community as “idolators.”29 Though Debrecen was not located within 
Transylvania, it was a bordering town, and as a result, it was directly affected by 
developments in the region. For the Reformed clergy, it was crucial that they intervened in 
the movement’s early years, in order to avoid the heretical teachings of Dávid and 
Biandrata from gaining traction. The texts from the synod can thus be read as a direct 
response to the internal divide within the Reformed community, which resulted in the 
emergence of anti-Trinitarianism in Transylvania.  
 
Members of the synod responded to controversial Unitarian claims about Reformed 
doctrine. For example, they asserted their convictions about Jesus Christ’s deity by denying 
claims of his inferiority to God the Father.30 The synod concluded that Sozzini’s 
“monstrous” anti-Trinitarian doctrine was anathema. They condemned his Christology, 
arguing in their response that God was indeed, as confirmed by the Bible, three Persons 
within one Godhead.31 This language is adopted throughout the text of the synod reveals an 
intense distaste for the theology of the Unitarian Church and an urge to expel the perceived 
heretics and their “insufferable wickedness” from Debrecen: “We condemn and repudiate 
every heresy which, according to the testimony of the apostle, is supported by the devil 
through his instruments from vain desire for glory, quarrelsomeness, schism, envy, 
arrogance and verbal battles … namely, those of Sabellius and Servetus against the true 
Trinity.”32 Anti-Trinitarianism was certainly a polemical topic at the 1567 synod, and it 
confirms the depth of antipathy within the Reformed Church towards their former 
colleagues who had embraced anti-Trinitarianism: “We repudiate those that call the Father 
autotheon and attribute to the Son some finite beginning and tear away from the Son equal 
deity and His being one with the Father … we resolved to avoid [the anti-Trinitarians], their 
false doctrine, and their society like an infectious disease.”33 Ultimately, it is clear that the 
synod exemplifies the bitter hostility that the Unitarian Church faced in its early years of 
development, even as it gained legal recognition in Transylvania, and therefore challenges 
any claims coupling laws about religious rights to attitudes towards religious tolerance in 

 
28 Balázs, Early Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, 20. From then on, the Hungarian Reformed Church officially 
labelled itself “Reformed according to the Helvetic Confession.” 
29 “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 2.  
30 “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 6. “They, however, err wickedly who teach that Christ apart 
from the form of a servant and function of a servant is in some degree inferior to the Father, less than Him 
and not His equal.”  
31 Members of the synod pointed to many passages from the Bible to support their claims, for example in the 
Gospel of John: “that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.” (John 
10:38, English Standard Version). 
32 Balázs, Early Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, 11.  
33 “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 5-10. 



 

29 
 

 

early modern Europe. 
 
In the next two years, there were two more synods within the Reformed Church, in Szikszó 
and Nagyvárad respectively. In many ways, the sentiments from these two synods are the 
same as the sentiments at Debrecen in 1567. All three synods brought together clergymen 
from throughout Hungary and feature a strong, biblical defense of the Reformed faith. At 
both Szikszó and Nagyvárad (the latter now Oradea in modern-day Romania), it is made 
explicitly clear that the synod convened, at least in part, as a direct response to the 
continued popularity of Unitarianism in Transylvania. At both synods, it is also evident that 
there was no embrace of tolerance towards anti-Trinitarianism among the Reformed 
Church.  
 
The synod at Szikszó convened on January 6, 1568, mere weeks before the Transylvania 
diet passed the edict at Torda (Turda in modern-day Romania), which granted rights of 
conscience and worship to the Unitarian Church. The synod features a doctrinal statement, 
which clarifies the Reformed Church’s position on the sacraments of baptism and 
communion, as well as their position on polygamy, but most pertinently their 
understanding of God’s Triune nature and character. In total, there are twenty-four 
statements made rejecting anti-Trinitarianism and the affirmation of the Trinity became a 
key marker of identity for the Reformed Church in this region.34  
 
The full proceedings from the synod are full of avid rejections of the Unitarian faith, 
considered by the Trinitarian Reformed clergy to have been “recalled afresh from hell.”35 
There is a continued reliance on Scripture as the basis of the arguments, for example, 
referring to Isaiah 43:10 in order to emphasize the Triune God’s unchanging character and 
the eternal nature of the Son: “Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after 
me.”36 Unitarian theology is addressed on numerous occasions, often referred to as 
nonsense: “Therefore, they who deny the unity and trinity and coeternal nature and deity 
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit impiously speak nonsense.”37 While the Debrecen synod 
is more detailed and contains more specific calls for action in response to the emergence of 
Unitarianism, it is clear that the clergy at Szikszó harbored radical intolerance towards 
their Unitarian neighbors. 
 
The synod reconvened in the town of Nagyvárad in 1569. Once again, a number of Hungary 
clergymen were present, including Péter Melius Juhász. The synod’s opening title reads, 
“The consensus of the ministers in Hungary professing and defending the orthodox faith 
against Franciscus Davidis, Georgius Blandrata and the Transylvanian Unitarians.”38 It is 
also interesting to note that the members of the synod did not consider themselves the 
aggressors, rather expressing the necessity of “defending” the Reformed faith against 
doctrinal innovation. 

 
34 “The Synod at Szikszó (1568),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 
ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., vol. 3, 1567-1599 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015), 147. 
35 “The Synod at Szikszó (1568),” 148. 
36 “The Synod at Szikszó (1568),” 149. 
37 “The Synod at Szikszó (1568),” 150. 
38 “Confession of Varadiensis/Nagyvárad,” 162. 



 

30 
 

 

 
The document from the synod features a statement of faith that once again leans heavily on 
God’s Triune nature. It contains six theses, all pertaining to the character of God, and four 
overtly professing belief in a Triune Godhead consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.39 
The subsequent portion of the synod’s document, entitled “Confessions of the Pastors,” lays 
out their particular abhorrence of the “horrendous blasphemy” of the Unitarian Church, 
“who deny that God the Father is the eternal Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”40 
In the final line from the synod’s document, the Hungarian pastors write in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, further emphasizing their Trinitarian stance.41  
 
The texts emerging from these synods serve as a reminder of how bitterly anti-
Trinitarianism emerged in Transylvania as a the result of a polemic split within the 
Reformed community. The Unitarian Church defined itself as the only truly Reformed 
religion, solely reliant on Scripture, in stark contrast to what they considered the 
polytheistic and non-Biblical Reformed and Roman Catholic confessions. Similarly, the 
synods exemplify how the Hungarian Reformed Church defined themselves within the 
context of their opposition, claiming that they were the only true, Biblical religion. This self-
definition as a Trinitarian Church in opposition to the Unitarian Church is unique to 
Transylvania in this period and polemic rhetoric between all sides accompanied a legal 
regime that extended rights to different churches. 
 
The results of the Reformed synods of 1567 to 1569 strongly suggest that many members  
of the Reformed community desired that rights be removed from the Unitarian Church.42 
Beyond that, the synods also reflect a severe distaste towards the Roman Catholic 
community in Transylvania: “[God] commands that we weed out and uproot them, so that 
no trace of Papist defilement remains in the heart and soul of man.”43 Hence, the three 
synods examined in this article provide a challenge to the concept of Transylvania as a land 
where a language or principle of “tolerance” was advocated in any modern-day 
understanding of the term. Despite decrees from the ruling diet, there was clearly 
resistance to the idea of tolerance and practice of toleration among Hungarian speakers, 
both in Transylvania and in Hungary. Rather than confirm an attitude of tolerance in the 
region, these synods de-romanticize the time period and remind the reader that there was 
essentially no embrace of religious tolerance by the Hungarian Reformed Church towards 
Unitarianism. Toleration in the sixteenth century was, ultimately, a reluctant compromise 
practiced among hostile religious factions in the region.  
 
However, while the Unitarian Church endured widespread persecution throughout Europe, 
it was granted specific legal rights that allowed it to grow and develop in the Transylvanian 
principality. The reason for this unique legal status was partly due to the desire to maintain 

 
39 “Confession of Varadiensis/Nagyvárad,” 162-163. 
40 “Confession of Varadiensis/Nagyvárad,” 166. 
41 “Confession of Varadiensis/Nagyvárad,” 167. 
42 “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 11-12. 
43 “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 12. This quote is preceded by an allusion to the first chapter of 
Jeremiah, in which the prophet is commanded to expel heresy from his nation in the name of the Lord. This 
provides the biblical foundation for the Reformed Church’s argument. 



 

31 
 

 

social peace and to pursue a policy that bolstered support among the elite of different faiths 
for Transylvania as an autonomous state but also due to the support of the Unitarian 
prince, János Zsigmond Szapolyai, whose distinct religious policies allowed the Church to 
flourish in the region.  
 
Laws Concerning Anti-Trinitarianism in Transylvania in the Sixteenth Century 
By 1568, Transylvania was divided into Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Unitarian, 
and Eastern Orthodox communities, as well as being home to other faith communities, 
most notably Jewish, Muslim, and Roma. Naturally, tensions between these groups of 
believers were high, and when debates surrounding the Trinity intensified in the 1560s, so 
too did questions about the extent to which religious freedom should be sanctioned. This 
resulted in the Edict of Torda in 1568, which has been directly linked with the emergence 
of Unitarianism in the region and is also central to the claims of numerous modern 
historians that Transylvania was a “pioneer” of religious tolerance.44 
 
Most of the laws passed during János Zsigmond’s reign focused on the challenges of 
religious pluralism. In order to achieve a peaceful resolution to the issue of 
multiconfessionalism, the diet granted a significant amount of religious liberty to preachers 
in the region, which was practically unheard of throughout the continent. Perhaps the most 
influential law passed by the prince was the 1568 Edict of Torda, in which it was 
announced that ministers in the region were to preach the Gospel “according to their 
understanding of it,” allowing space for a variety of conflicting interpretations of Scripture 
to coexist.45 This edict was one of a number of laws about religious rights passed during the 
middle decades of the sixteenth century, which in one sense seem to portray the region as 
uniquely tolerant. Later laws, for example, permitted the sharing of church buildings 
among confessions in order to conduct worship services, while the 1571 Diet of 
Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mures) further solidified confessional pluralism in the region, as it 
ensured that “no one, neither preacher nor listener, shall come to harm on account of his 
confession.”46 These laws laid the groundwork for religious pluralism to flourish in the 
region without any violent disturbance for a number of centuries. 
 
One law—the 1570 Edict of Medgyes (Medias)—appears to contradict the prince’s ideology 
and the Edict of Torda. It states: “We will carry out Your Majesty's order concerning the 
newly emerging heresies and their initiators; that Your Majesty considers honoring God 
and respecting his royal dignity of foremost importance, therefore he does not tolerate 
such blasphemy and heresy in his realm, but rather scrutinizes them and punishes both 

 
44 Balázs, Cooper, and Gellérd, “Tolerant Country,” 87. See, for example, the writings of Earl Morse Wilbur, 
who saw Transylvanian Unitarianism as evidence for religious tolerance in the region. Wilbur, A History of 
Unitarianism, 165. Dennison, on the other hand, reads these laws as a mere façade concealing Dávid’s and 
Szapolyai’s true motivations to push their Unitarian agenda. “The Synod at Szikszó (1568),” 147.  
45 Szilágyi Sándor, ed. Erdélyi Országgyûlési Emlékek. Monumenta Comitialia Regni Transsylvaniae (Budapest: 
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1877), 2:343, cited in Graeme Murdock, “Turda, 1568: Tolerance 
Transylvanian Style,” in A Sourcebook of Early Modern European History: Life, Death, and Everything in 
Between, ed. Ute Lotz-Heumann (New York: Routledge, 2019), 236. 
46 Balázs, Cooper, and Gellérd, “Tolerant Country,” 89. 



 

32 
 

 

their authors and propagators in order to avoid an even greater divine wrath upon us.”47 
While some historians attribute this law as a move to prevent anarchy in the region, Balázs 
sees this interpretation as a projection of modern-day concepts of religious tolerance onto 
a sixteenth-century context. Rather, he claims that the law appears to have been put in 
place to prevent newly emerging groups from gaining influence in the region.48 This 
reading of the law aligns with Szapolyai’s ideology; it de-romanticizes these sixteenth-
century laws, distancing them from any modern concepts of religious tolerance.  
 
It is important, then, to note that, by legally recognizing multiple confessions in one region, 
Szapolyai was enforcing the requirement for Transylvanians to practice toleration. 
However, his emphasis at each diet was on the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura—
that the Bible was God’s infallible and inerrant Word and therefore the sole authority on all 
matters. This principle is drawn from verses of Scripture, such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All 
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, 
thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”49 It can therefore be concluded that the edict 
was intentionally excluding non-Protestant communities, namely the Roman Catholic and 
Eastern Orthodox churches. This can be determined by the wording of the terms of the 
edict. The emphasis on reading Scripture in the vernacular, as well as the concept of 
preaching the Gospel according to one’s own interpretation, are core Protestant beliefs. 
Thus, the edict was indirectly discriminating against the non-Protestant communities. The 
edict also concerned communities of believers and did not grant religious freedom to the 
individual. Given the diverse nature of Transylvania in the sixteenth century, as well as the 
pressure placed on the region from external forces, it is no surprise that cooperation and 
respect between these primary confessional groups would be at the forefront of János 
Zsigmond’s religious policy.50 Toleration was, at this point, in the best interests of all 
parties, in order to establish a peaceful coexistence, and therefore it was a practice 
motivated entirely by self-interest, rather than mutual goodwill and respect, let alone any 
principled interest in tolerance. 
 
By examining these laws, one can see the unique status of the Unitarian community in the 
principality of Transylvania. Szapolyai’s legal actions granted the Church a space to grow 
and develop in the region unlike anywhere else in Europe. The Edict of Torda gave the 
Church a strong foothold in the region’s internal affairs, as the first Unitarian schools were 
founded within a few years.51 Moreover, one must also consider the number of laws 
introduced by the subsequent Catholic rulers, which seemed to limit the status of anti-
Trinitarianism in the region and thereby challenge Transylvania’s alleged tolerance.  
 
When Szapolyai died in 1571, he was succeeded by the Catholic noble István Báthory.52 

 
47 Balázs, Cooper, and Gellérd, “Tolerant Country,” 89-90. 
48 Balázs, Cooper, and Gellérd, “Tolerant Country,” 91. 
49 King James Version. 
50 Fata, “The Kingdom of Hungary and Principality of Transylvania,” 115. 
51 Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism in Transylvania,” 411. 
52 Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism in Transylvania,” 184. In another act of compromise, it can be seen that the 
Protestant elite welcomed Báthory in the principality, despite his Roman Catholic faith, because of his anti-



 

33 
 

 

Báthory’s prejudices against the Unitarian Church are clearly reflected in the laws passed 
by the Transylvanian diet during his reign. Similarly keen to secure political peace and 
autonomy in the region, however, the prince was unable to reverse the laws enacted by his 
predecessor. It is also important to note that maintaining peaceful multi-confessionalism in 
the region helped Báthory in the lead up to his election as the king of Poland. His successful 
history of maintaining peace in Transylvania encouraged the Polish nobility to think he 
would maintain their own multiconfessional settlement.53 Despite this, as Balázs explains, 
“he took every opportunity to act against Antitrinitarians.”54 
 
Báthory was never subtle in his opposition of the Unitarian Church. From the early days of 
his rule, he made it clear that Lutheranism was the most acceptable form of Protestant 
worship.55 Ferenc Dávid, as well as his fellow Unitarians, was dismissed from Báthory’s 
court when he came to power, and consequently the preacher’s influence in the region 
started to diminish. At the 1572 Diet of Torda, the prince accepted the late János 
Zsigmond’s decree recognizing the region’s confessional pluralism, but simultaneously 
introduced a new ban on any further doctrinal innovation: “if found guilty of preaching a 
different faith from that of the late King, he should be excommunicated or otherwise 
punished according to his deserts.”56 This law strengthened Báthory’s hold on the region’s 
affairs, while also maintaining multiconfessional peace in the region. As well as this, the 
Catholic prince placed tighter restrictions on the ability of Unitarians to print and 
distribute literature.57 Thus, compared to the freedom they enjoyed under Szapolyai, one 
can see that attempts were made to limit any further intellectual development of anti-
Trinitarian ideas within the Unitarian Church. While it remained an official confession in 
the region, any further development was deliberately curtailed by laws limiting “doctrinal 
innovation.” Returning to Kaplan’s definition of the term, it can be seen that Báthory’s 
treatment of the Unitarian Church did not come from any abstract ideal of religious liberty, 
but rather a necessity to maintain peace in the region while conceding the most limited 
religious rights to Unitarians possible. Transylvanian tolerance was a grudging affair 
developed in a very specific political and social context. 
 
The aforementioned ban on doctrinal innovation came into effect when Ferenc Dávid was 
accused of the crime in 1579, which came about as a result of the splitting of the Unitarian 
Church into two factions. The original group continued to adore Christ in worship, in 
accordance with Sozzini’s Christology, while the other group did not.58 This group defined 
themselves as non-adorantists, as they held to the conviction that Christ was merely mortal 
and, as such, did not merit any worship or praise. This theological practice was referred to 
by Transylvanian Trinitarians as “the very wicked and detestable view that Christ should 

 
Habsburg convictions. Once again, this shows a willingness to tolerate (i.e., endure and bear with) the 
perceived enemy in order to achieve a common goal. 
53 On Bathory’s career in Transylvania and Poland, see Felicia Rosu, Elective Monarchy in Transylvania and 
Poland-Lithuania, 1569–1587 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017). 
54 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 184. 
55 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 184. 
56 Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, 59. 
57 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 184. 
58 Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism in Transylvania,” 412-413.  



 

34 
 

 

not be adored or invoked,” since it opposed the foundational truths of orthodox Christian 
doctrine.59 Ferenc Dávid became convinced of non-adorantism, and despite attempted 
interventions by some of the principality’s most notable Unitarian scholars, he would not 
concede.60 He held strictly to the Old Testament commandment that no one should be 
worshipped but God alone and believed that no further command had been given since 
then.61 Sozzini, on the other hand, remained “adorantist” throughout his life, as he claimed 
that, although it was not necessary, it was not heretical to invoke Christ in worship.62 
 
Báthory’s law indeed constrained the Unitarian superintendent in Transylvania to maintain 
“adorantist anti-Trinitarianism” as the core Unitarian doctrine, and as a result, Dávid’s 
accusation and trial for doctrinal innovation reveal further inaccuracies in the suggestion 
that Transylvania was a haven for religious tolerance throughout the early modern period. 
Rather, it becomes clear that Báthory was doing what was necessary to maintain internal 
political and social stability in the region, which continued to see angry rhetoric from all 
sides against the views of rivals, and nothing more. In the following centuries, non-
adorantists would continue to be subject to persecution on the basis of these laws passed 
by Báthory in the mid-sixteenth century.63 However, despite their contested place and 
internal divisions, the Unitarian Church that emerged from this period has remained in the 
Transylvanian principality to this day and enjoys a unique popularity in many towns and 
villages throughout the region. 
 
By the end of the sixteenth century, Unitarianism was no longer a catch-all term. The 
polemic split that resulted in two main factions—adorantists and non-adorantists, who 
became known as “Sabbatarians”—had led to questions about the nature of the Unitarian 
Church in Transylvania. Every anti-Trinitarian could agree theologically that God was a 
single entity, but beyond that there was no further consensus. At first, arguments arose 
over whether or not one should worship Jesus Christ or not; later, divisions arose over 
whether or not one should share in the sacraments of baptism and communion or not. 
These intense debates continued for centuries. Despite this, it was a beneficiary of the 
unique multiconfessional laws passed by János Zsigmond Szapolyai in mid-sixteenth 
century. These laws allowed the Church to emerge in the principality unlike anywhere else 
in Europe, and while at first glance this appears to portray the region as a tolerant place, 
upon deeper investigation it can be seen that the laws were primarily adopted in order to 
allow Transylvania to maintain peace within its own borders and to bolster the political 
authority of the elected nobles who ruled the nascent state with precarious autonomy. 

 
59 Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, 39. 
60 “Biandrata had called for Sozzini to come to Transylvania to assist him in dealing with the turmoil caused 
by Ferenc Dávid’s espousal of non-adorantism … The Italian theologian then practically lived together with 
Dávid from November 1578 until April 1579 attempting to persuade Dávid to change his position.” Balázs, 
“Antitrinitarianism,” 189. 
61 See, for example, Matthew 4:10b: “for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt 
thou serve.” King James Version. 
62 Balázs, “Antitrinitarianism,” 189. See, for example, John 5:22-23, where Sozzini claimed Jesus sanctioned 
adoration of Him in worship: “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 
That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son 
honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” King James Version. 
63 Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism,” 415. 



 

35 
 

 

Thus, toleration was in some ways forced upon the Transylvanian people from above, 
through the laws passed by Szapolyai and Báthory, while also being practiced by the 
general populace below with state laws that directly forbade any violence towards 
preachers in legal churches, in order to maintain peace in the region. 
 
Conclusion 
This article has shown that Transylvania’s famed attitude towards religious tolerance was, 
in many ways, no different to the attitudes of most other European states. Throughout the 
early modern period, Hungarian historiography has portrayed the region as one far more 
advanced than its neighbors, striving for the ideals of peace and coexistence amid an age of 
brutality and warfare. Beyond this, many scholars have often pointed directly to the 
emergence and development of the Unitarian Church in the region to strengthen their 
nationalist arguments. Yet, in analyzing the confession’s emergence in the region from the 
Reformed Church, it seems clear that, although the region stood out for its unique 
acceptance of anti-Trinitarianism, religious pluralism in Transylvania was not based on any 
ideological concept. Rather, as historian Graeme Murdock explains, Transylvanian 
multiconfessionalism revealed itself as “a set of pragmatic rather than ideological 
responses to the changing character of European states and societies after the 
Reformation.”64 This attitude is reflected in the legal developments within the region 
during the mid-sixteenth century, which forced Transylvanian citizens into the social 
practice of toleration, regardless of their opposition of conflicting doctrine. No single 
denomination enjoyed a popularity significant enough to dominate the region’s affairs, and 
so while many Transylvanian citizens hoped that confessional pluralism would be a 
temporary measure, they were willing to do what was necessary and compromise with 
their enemies, for the sake of internal stability.65  
 
Hence, it is erroneous to presume twenty-first-century concepts of individual religious 
freedom onto the legal and cultural actions of sixteenth-century Transylvania.66 It has been 
shown in the Reformed synods of 1567, 1568, and 1569 that there was no embrace of 
religious tolerance among the Reformed community, despite laws passed by the diet. The 
motivation for practicing toleration in the region was largely governed entirely by self-
interest of the state’s elite of differing faiths. Opposing denominations needed to reach a 
reluctant common ground of Biblicism in order to achieve peace while vehemently 
disagreeing about interpretation of the Bible. Although various diets and rulers sanctioned 
religious pluralism during the early modern period, they also found ways to restrict the 
influence of minorities, as was the case with the Unitarian Church in Transylvania.  
 
The growth of the Unitarian Church is a fascinating case study; its origins, development, 
and polemical inner division provide key insights into the political and cultural dimensions 
of toleration in early modern Europe. The confession would continue to be the subject of 
much dispute for centuries, but ultimately it was clear to the citizens of Transylvania that 
maintaining the mundane social practice of confessional pluralism was the best means to 

 
64 Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism,” 415. 
65 Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism,” 415-416. 
66 Balázs, Cooper, and Gellérd, “Tolerant Country,” 90. 



 

36 
 

 

achieve peace during the period. Rather than any ideological standard, the 
multiconfessional state of Transylvania was built on “grudging and hard-fought 
compromises.”67 

 
67 Murdock, “Multiconfessionalism,” 394. 


	Introduction
	The Concept of Religious “Tolerance” in Early Modern Europe
	Szapolyai’s Role in the Development of Unitarianism in Transylvania
	Opposition to Anti-Trinitarianism at the Reformed Synods in Debrecen (1567), Nagyvárad (1568), and Szikszó (1569)
	Laws Concerning Anti-Trinitarianism in Transylvania in the Sixteenth Century
	Conclusion

