stances of the just exercise of this authority.

We have now to state the sentiments of the third class of Reformers, whose opinions it was proposed to consider those of the Established Church of Holland. A few words will suffice on this head, as these divines, after the example of Baldwin at Wittemberg, have embodied their thoughts on the subject of religious liberty in an academical thesis, proposed, by authority, to be discussed in the theological schools. This curious document they have intituled "A Disputation concerning lawful Homicide." "In order," they say, "that it may the better appear what idolater, heretic, and blasphemer is to be adjudged worthy of death, we will give a definition of each." Accordingly they proceed as follows: "The idolater is deserving of capital punishment who, disregarding admonition, openly, designedly, and obstinately, so as to disturb the church and seduce others, substitutes some ideal object for the one true God, or joining some creature to him, as his companion, worships it with the one God, or who honours the true God alone, but not in that lawful manner prescribed in the Sacred Writings. The heretic is he who, separating himself from the church of which he had before, by an outward profession, declared himself to be a member, maintains an error which is opposed to the foundations of faith, and to the prophetical and apostolical doctrine delivered in the Scriptures, and from which, though often and properly admonished, and convinced from the word of God, both publicly and in private, he refuses to desist; who will not acknowledge the truth revealed in the writings of the apostles and prophets, but rather with invincible and pertinacious impiety rejects it, strives to wound the peace and harmony of the church, and opening the school of his perfidy, both in public and in private, endeavours, as far as he is able, by his writings and speeches, to introduce the faction and gangrene of his pestiferous doctrines into the church, or to cherish it after it has been introduced by others.

"The blasphemer is he who pubJicly, with deliberate purpose, obstinately disregarding admonition, either

slanderously and contumeliously utters something unbecoming concerning the true God, attributing to him that which does not comport with him, taking away that which does pertain to him, and transferring to a creature that which belongs to God alone; or else by an impious act impedes and tramples upon true divine worship, or endeavours to impede and trample upon it. Whoever," they add, "is found guilty of either of these crimes, as they are here stated, ought to be punished with death by the magistrate."

Disputatio de Homicidio legitimoad disputandum proposita in Collegio Theologico. Illustrissimis D. D. Ordinum Hollandiæ et Westphrisiæ, Anno 1602.

§ vii. "Quo autem melius constet quisnam morte dignus Idololatra, Hæreticus, definitionem proponemus; deinde, qui tales Blasphemus sit judicandus, singulorum occidendos esse, rationibus ex jure divino reperiuntur quales descriptio exigit, eos humanoque ex saniorum hominum testimonio petitis probabimus."

§viii. "Capitali supplicio dignus Idololatra est, qui palàm, data opera, neglectis admonitionibus, obstinate ut turbet Ecclesiam, et alios seducat, vice unius veri Dei fictum aliquem habuerit, ant præter unum illum, creaturam aliquam ipsi quasi socinm quidem Deum solum, sed non legitimo in adjungens coluerit, aut denique verum sacris literis præscripto modo, honoraverit. Hereticus est, qui ab ecclesia, cujus se membrum externa professione antea declaraverit, seipse separans, errorem fundamentis fidei, et Propheticæ Apostolicæque doctrinæ in Scripturis traditæ adversantem tuetur, de quo tamen sæpe et rite admonitus convictusque ex verbo Dei, tam publicè quam privatim contemtis admonitionibus non vult desistere, nec veritatem revelatam agnoscere; sed potius invicta et in scriptis Apostolorum et Prophetarum pertinaci impietate ei resistens, ecclesiæ pacem et concordiam lacerare contendit, suæque perfidiæ ludum publicè et privatim aperiens, pestiferi dogmatis factionem et gangrænam scriptis conscionibusque suis, quantum in se est, vel in ecclesiam Dei invehere, vel ab aliis invectam fovere. Blasphemus est, qui publicè, deliberato animo, neglectis admonitionibus, præfractè, vel maledica lingua, contumeliosè de Deo vero, indignum quippiam effutit, tum tribuendo ei quod ipsi non competit, tum adimendo quod ei proprium est, tum transferendo in creaturam quod est Dei solius, vel facto impio cultum divinum verum impedit, conculcat, aut impedire et conculcare conatur."

The classes which have been enumerated comprise the three great divisions of Reformers who retained, among other relics of Popery, the doctrine of the Trinky. It would have been easy to swell the extracts with passages from the works of other eminent persons of these schools, especially from those of Brentius, Musculus, Wolfgang Capito, Bucer and Peter Martyr, who all concurred in the sentiments which have been quoted, so far at least as to admit that the civil magistrate might lawfully coerce and punish reputed heretics and blasphemers, who publicly professed and taught their opinious. But the limits of this essay will not allow of quotations from their writings, and they are unnecessary, in such a brief summary, to illustrate the subject.

A compendium of the sentiments of the early Reformers respecting religious liberty would, however, be defective without including the opinions which were held and acted upon by some of the Antitrinitarians of the same period. The persecution of Francis David in Transylvania, requires that some notice should be taken of Blandrata and Faustus Socinus, who are connected with that disgraceful transaction, either as instigators or abettors. Of Blandrata it will be sufficient to state, that the whole of the proceedings against David had his approbation, and were, most probably, planned and conducted by him. That Socinus countenanced the prosecution, so far at least as related to the deposition and imprisonment of the venerable superintendant, must be received as matter of authentic history. It is further evident, that in doing this he acted in conformity with his principles, it being his declared opinion, that, in certain cases, men might lawfully be restrained by the civil power. Writing

For a detailed account of the proceedings relative to Francis David, the

reader is referred to Dr. Thomas Rees's Historical Introduction to his Translation

of the Racovian Catechism, pp. xlv. &c. The conduct of Socinus, in this persecution, has been considered, and the charges preferred against him, have been stated and examined, by the writer of the present essay, in the Nonconformist, No. V. Mon. Repos. XIII. 382, &c.

to Martin Vadovitz, a professor in the Academy of Cracow, and alluding to some persecution he had experienced, he thus expresses himself:-" But you will ask, Why do you affirm, that although you were an Heresiarch, and an obstinate one, you ought not to have been treated with this great severity ? I answer, because when there is a freedom from sedition, and the pursuit of self-interest, then the Heresiarch does not labour under a fault of the will, but of the understanding. Therefore, as we restrain, and, if it be necessary, confine in chains, mad and frantic persons who would otherwise be injurious to others, and at the same time greatly pity them; so an Heresiarch of this sort ought not to be treated with the utmost severity, but should meet with pity: and the only thing to be regarded is, to hinder his endeavours to propagate his doctrine, and if it cannot be otherwise done, by chains and a prison."

The preceding statements are taken from the writings and conduct of persons of the first celebrity in their respective communious, and may be regarded as the standard of opinion on the subject of religious liberty in the several countries in which they resided. It must not be concluded, however, that these views were held universally among the friends and promoters of the Reformation. There is abundant evidence to prove that sentiments far more just and liberal were embraced and avowed in the same period, by persons of distinguished learning and character. This may fairly be inferred from the general feeling of disapprobation which the proceedings against Servetus excited throughout Europe, and the necessity under which Calvin and his associates found themselves of entering upon an elaborate defence of their conduct. But, in addition to this, it is to be observed, that several very able works appeared shortly after this atrocious murder, reprobating the whole transaction in the strongest terms, and maintaining the most enlarged principles of religious freedom. In the number of these may be first

* Toulmin's Life of Socinus, pp. 104. 105. Socini Opera, I. 476, b.

mentioned the work, purporting to be the compilation of Martin Bellius, to which Beza's treatise is professedly an answer; a work, of which it may be conjectured, from his manner of speaking of him, that Beza knew the author. Another work appeared, anonymously, about the same period, under the title of "An Answer to Calvin's Book, in which he endeavours to shew that Heretics may be lawfully put to Death." t The

"De Hæreticis, an sint persequendi, et omnino quo modo sit cum eis agendum, doctorum Virorum tum veterum, tum recentiorum Sententiæ. Liber hoc tam turbulento tempore pernecessarius, et cum omuibus, tum potissimum Principibus et Magistratibus utilissimus, ad discendum, quodnam sit eorum in re tam controversa, tamque periculosa officium." Magdeburgi, 1554. The contents are, "1. Martini Bellii præfacio, in qua quid sit hæreticus, et quidnam cum eo agendum sit, demonstratur. 2. Aretii Cathari sententia, in qua apertè ostenditur hæreticorum punitionem ad magistratum non pertinere. 3. Joannis Witlingii de Anabaptistis, et cæteris qui hæretici habentur sententia, quæ idem docet. 4. Aliorum Authorum, tum veterum, tum recentiorum eadem de re sententiæ. 5. Basilii Montfortii refutatio eorum, quæ pro persecutione dici solent

Bock (Hist. Antitrin. Vol. II. p. 639) states that Beza, in his Life of Calvin, attributes it to Lælius Socinus; but on referring to that work it will be seen that he expressly ascribes it to Castalio. His words are, "Celny-ci (Sebastien Chastillon) qui auoit tousiours teuu de la perfection Anabaptistique mais secretement et entre les siens, ne faisant au surplus difficulté de s'accommoder à chacun, estant aussi grandement irrité de la mort de Seruet, se descouurit ouuertment, premierement en vn liure qu'il fit imprimer en Latin et en François, sous vn faux nom de Martin Bellie: anx erreurs et blasphemes duquel je respondi lors." "L'Histoire de la Vie et Mort de feu Mr. Jean Calvin, &c. Par Theodore de Beza. A Geneve, 1663." 12mo, p. 79.

"Contra libellum Calvini in quo ostendere conatur læreticos jure Gladii coercendos esse." The first edition of this very scarce work was printed in 1554. It was reprinted in Holland in 1612, according to Sandius, but according to Vogt, in 1662. This difference respecting the date has probably been occasioned by the manner in which it is printed on the title page, which is as follows-MDLCXII; but may not this be read 1562? Sandius

writer's plan is first to give Calvin's own words, dividing his work into sections, and then to answer these sections, seriatim. At the end are appended some smaller pieces relating to the same subject. This is a very masterly performance. It has been ascribed severally to Castalio and Lælius Socinus. The internal evidence appears decisive against the former conjecture: the latter is most probably correct. After this appeared an elaborate and able treatise against the capital punishment of heretics, which has also been attributed to both Castalio and Lælius, Socinus, but which bears on the title page the name of the real author, Minus Celsus, a native of Sienna, and one of the early` Italian Antitrinitarians.†

(Biblio. Antitrin. p. 20) calls this "a dialogue between Calvin and Vaticanus." But this is not correct. It assumes the dialogue form to the eye, from the extracts from Calvin's book, having his name prefixed to them, and the answers to them being headed "Vaticanus." This work is referred to by Mosheim, in his Life of Servetus, under the following title: "Dissertatio, qua disputatur quo jure quove fructu Hæretici sunt coercendi Gladio vel Igne, vel Dialogus inter Calvinum et Vaticanum." Vogt, ut supin, p. 164.

Bock, following Mosheim, declares himself of opinion that it was written by neither Castalio nor L. Socinus. Hist. Antitrin. Vol. II. p. 639.

In Hæreticis coercendis quatenus progredi liceat: Mini Celsi Senensis Disputatio. Ubi nominatim eos ultimo supplicio affici non debere apertè demonstratur. Christlingæ, 1577. This work afterwards appeared under the following title: Mini Celsi Senensis, de Hæreticis Capitali Supplicio non afficiendis. Adjunctæ sunt ejusdem Argumenti Theodori Bezæ et Andreæ Duditii Epistolæ duæ contrariæ, &c. 1584. The extracts from this work given in the preceding pages, are transcribed from this edition which is the only one in my possession. There is a copy of the first edition in the British Museum. On collating the two editions I perceive that the body of the work, as far as the signature h, or p. 224, is identically the same in both, having the same typographical errata. The only part of the original work that appears to have been actually reprinted is that comprised in pp. 224-230. To the second edition are added the letters of Beza and Dudith, and the original preface has been exchanged

Though Faustus Socinus has expressed himself as averse to unrestrained Christian freedom, the Unitarians of that period are not to be considered as equally narrow in their sentiments. It would be no difficult task to produce passages from their writings which breathe a spirit of liberality worthy of the cause in which they stood forward so honourably as advocates and confessors. But exclusively of incidental expressions which lie scattered in their publica. tions, there exist two works in which the subject is professedly treated, and in which their sentiments are fully explained and openly asserted. The first, in order of time, is a tract, intituled Vindicia pro Religionis Libertate, bearing on the title the name of Junius Brutus, but which was really written by John Crellius. † The immediate object of the author is to shew that the Catholic government might safely grant full liberty of worship to the Unitarians as long as they conducted themselves peaceably. The work was written in consequence of the attempts that were making by the Catholics of Poland to subject the Unitarians in that country to some severe restrictive measures. The other is an anonymous

for a dedicatory epistle from "Valens Titus Ligius" to "Christophorus Cuipius

Saxonus."

Schelhorn seems now to be considered as having set the question to rest concerning the author of this book. In his "Amanitates Literariæ," Vol. VII. p. 86, he ascribes it to Minus Celsus, whom he shews to have been a person of some note in Italy among the literati of his time. See also Vogt, p. 187; Bock, Vol. II. p. 641; Zeltner's Notes to Ruarus's Epistles, P.

186.

See particularly the admirable preface of A. Wissowatius, J. Stegman, to the Racovian Catechism, on "The Liberty of Prophesying." Rees's Racovian Catechism, Pp. xcv, &c.

† Bock, Vol. I. P. 149. "That Crellius was the author of this work (which some have doubted) is proved by the MS. acts of the Synod, held at Racof in 1635, when it was ordered that Ruarus

should take measures to have Crellius's book on the Maintenance of Peace and Faith towards Heretics (which is certainly the same work) printed in other countries." It is inserted in the folio edition of the collected works of Crellins, in the Bibloth. Frat. Polon, Vol. III. p. 521.

piece composed by Schlichtingius, and intituled Apologia pro Veritate accusata. It was addressed "to the States of Holland and West Frisia," in consequence of a decree passed by them against the Unitarians, in September 1659, and the applications of the ecclesiastical authorities to the magistrates to enact against them laws of still greater severity. In both these tracts the fullest liberty of conscience is contended for by the illustrious authors.

From the representations which have now been made, a tolerably correct estimate may be formed of the sentiments of the early Continental Reformers on the subject of Religious Liberty. It is painful to observe that so many of those eminent persons, whơ have so well merited the applause of mankind by their honourable and successful stand against the ty ranuical usurpations of the Church of Rome, should have admitted into their minds principles so hostile to the just rights of conscience, and so inconsistent with the conduct they had themselves pursued. In forming our estimate of their character, it is, however, but fair to grant them the full benefit of that equitable law, which requires that men should be judged by the principles of their doubt, to be made for the circumtimes. Great allowance ought, no stances in which they were placed, and the difficulties they had to encounter. It would, perhaps, be expecting too much from human nature were we to look for the most correct and enlarged sentiments on religious freedom from persons who had been nursed in the cradle of intolerance, and accustomed to bend their minds with implicit submission to the will of their spiritual superiors. But the largest concessions which justice and candour can demand for them will not go the full length of their justification in the intolerant and persecuting measures to which they too frequently resorted. Least of all will it allow that the bitter animosity, the cool, steady and relentless spirit of vengeance, with which, in some instances, they pursued men, for a mere difference of opinion, to the block and the

* Bock, Vol. I. p. 815.

stake, should be passed over, in any age, without reprehension.

Let it be considered, however, that whatever apology their circumstances may plead for the narrow views of religious liberty entertained by the early Reformers, and the persecutions into which their principles betrayed them, no excuse of a similar kind can justify or even palliate the same principles and conduct in the present age. Thanks to the ameliorating influence of Christianity, which has been silently and gradually, but, at the same time, effectually improving the human heart, and correcting the institutions of civil society, it is now no longer a question to be argued, at least among Protestants, whether it be lawful to put reputed heretics to death. Let it be hoped that the time is not far distant when it will also be deemed absurd and monstrous, a gross violation of Christian freedom, and of the rights of human nature, to subject men to any degree of inconvenience and suffering, to civil disabilities and penalties, for the opinions they may conscientiously hold on the subject of religion.

It may be remarked, in conclusion, that the first and fatal error of the early Reformers, and the cause of all their subsequent mistakes concerning religious liberty, was to ally religion with the state, and call in the aid of the civil magistrate to maintain their creed and worship. This should operate as a warning and admonition to after times. For it is not too much to say, that perfect freedom, which is every man's birthright, will in vain be hoped for until religion shall have been repudiated from her unholy union with political authority; until she shall be permitted to stand and to rule independent and alone; swaying her mild sceptre with all her native grace and benignity, inspiring every breast with love, and diffusing around universal harmony and peace.

SIR,

A

R. S.

S the names of two of my most intimate friends, who cannot now answer for themselves, are mentioned in your very valuable Repository, (p. 658,) I think it a duty incumbent on me to state the fact more correctly than it is there given. In speaking of the Unitarian Society

established for the circulation of Books, it is said, that in the original formation of the Society the word "idolatrous" occasioned considerable discussion. The adoption of it, according to the statement of the writer, who represents himself as the originator of the Society, "cost the Society several of its most respectable members, and particularly the whole body of Unitarians then existing in the University of Cambridge, amongst whom were Mr. Jones, the late celebrated tutor of Trinity, and Mr. Tyrwhitt, of Jesus College." Mr. Jones had been my private tutor, and we ever after lived on most intimate terms of friendship, of which a public testimonial was given in the University, and it will never be erased from my mind. In a similar manner I was connected with Mr. Tyrwhitt, with whom I was particularly intimate for the greater part of the time that I was a resident member of Jesus College, and afterwards our intercourse was kept up by letter and occasional visits to the University. I might addhere that his friendship to me was marked at his death by the kind notice taken of me in his will.

I remember perfectly well our secession from the Unitarian Society for the distribution of Books, and I can confidently state that my two friends. above-mentioned and myself left it on other grounds besides those stated in your Repository. I have not before me the prospectus which was then in our hands, but I recollect thus much, that it did not agree with the views which we entertained of our Saviour's character. We certainly did object to the term idolatrous, not only because we thought it not a proper term to be used, when it is strictly analyzed, but also because it was an offensive term, and introduced without any necessity.

Mr. Tyrwhitt retained the same opinion to his death, and I have not altered mine. In some of your preceding Numbers I have given my reasons for differing from Mr. Belsham in his definition of Unitarians: and, according to his description of them, Mr. Tyrwhitt and myself are equally excluded from belonging to that body. Indeed, Mr. Tyrwhitt would have expressed himself with some degree of indignation, if, because he was an