advanced in my defence, especially the latter end "of that book: nay, if you please and have lei"fure, read over the Treatise itself, compare it "with PALEOLOGUS, and there is no doubt but *that, with fome very excellent and judicious "men, you will not only exculpate me from the ¢¢ charge of being a reviler, but will even own that "I have acted with moderation; efpecially when "I did not plead my own private caufe, and there was no danger it should be faid, that I was hur"ried away by the luft of revenge, beyond the i bounds of moderation *.

86

I am ready to think that impartial and candid perfons will allow that these pleas have some weight, and do palliate, if not entirely exculpate, the feverities of Socinus's pen against this antagonist. But not PALEOLOGUS alone, it will be faid, but FRANdis DAVID alfo, and the doctrine of the Judaizers are treated with unbecoming harshness. Thus in this very Apology he ftiles their fentiments, concerning not invoking and adoring JESUS CHRIST, an impious and deteftable opinion, and speaks of it ás connected with many other most peftilential errors. He charges PALEOLOGUS with being the caufe of great evils in Tranfylvania, Hungary, Lithuania, and many other places: as the person who "raifed

G

Opera, tom, i. p. 364, 365.

raifed up one FRANCIS DAVID in Lithuania, and infected the Churches of that Province with his POISON. Thefe views of the light in which the opinions of thefe perfons appeared to him, he alledges as pleas in defence of the strain of his Piece againft PALEOLOGUS.

But fuch expreffions are rather abufive than ar. gumentative, or at beft are but mere begging the question: nay, they hold up an adverfary in an invidious point of view, are calculated to prejudice others against him, and prevent a calm and fair attention to the arguments on either fide. However it must be allowed, there is a difference between thefe expreffions and PERSONAL abufes, and that the former are more excufable than the latter. And in favour of SOCINUS it must be granted, in the general, and on most occasions, he wrote in a different ftrain. This is certainly to his praise and honour.

३

But more than Words, FACTS are alledged against Socinus; he is fufpected, rather charged, with being acceffary to the imprifonment of FRAN CIS DAVD, who died in his confinement. SoCINUS did not escape blame on this account, fays his Biographer." It is a vain endeavour to go about to juftify SOCINUS from the perfecution exer

"cifed

cifed on the person of FRANCIS DAVID. BLAN 86 DRATA had enough intereft and influence with "the Prince of Tranfylvania, to hinder the impri-' "fonment, if he had pleased; and Socinus could ❝ easily have brought BLANDRATA to temper and "mildness*."

This is the charge, let us hear the defence: PRZIPcovius hath advanced fomething on this head, and SOCINUS himself hath entered into a particular vin dication of his character against all the accufations thrown out against him in his own life, on account of his conduct towards FRANCIS DAVID.

The Polish KNIGHT fpeaking of this unhappy event, and of the blame that fell on Socinus, adds, "As if he were not able to vanquish FRANCIS with "other weapons, when the difputations of both are "published; or as if the Magiftrate were so de"voted to the caufe of SoCINUS, that at his plea"fure, or that of any one of the party, he would " employ the weapons of his authority. SOCINUS "did not efcape all odium in this matter. But if ་ any one who favoured the caufe of SOCINUS did G 2 "advise

RELAND'S Four Treatifes on the Doctrine, &c. of the MAHOMETANS, p. 234. See alfo YAIR's Life of SERVETUS, p. 201, 202.

advife the Prince to this cruel measure against "FRANCIS, (of which I am nevertheless not cer

tain) SOCINUS certainly ought not to bear the "blame of it; for he could neither know his defign, "nor approve the deed. For, to omit many other "confiderations, nothing could be more repugnant "to the fentiments of SOCINUS, than that the doc"trine which could not be fupported by the judg

ment and eloquence of FRANCIS when alive, "fhould appear to receive a fanction from the filent, "but ftriking teftimony of his death: especially "when carrying the appearance of a martyrdom, it turned the eyes of all men to it *."

This reafoning offers no more than prefumptive evidence on behalf of SocINUS. Let it be feen whether his own pleas and declarations are more

fatisfactory. In his Preface to the Dispute with FRANCIS DAVID, not publifhed till fifteen years afterwards, he particularly fet himself to answer the Calumnies, with which his name had been afperfed, and which he was afraid, through his long filence, had gained credit among such to whom he was not known. By this vindication it appears that his character was attacked in more refpects than one, on account of this affair.

Opera, tom, i. Vita SoCINI, p. 4.

** I now

I now come to the Calumnies. The firft is,' that by letters I accufed FRANCIS DAVID to "BLANDRATA of not adhering to the agreement, "and of continuing to discourse and dispute with

me and other perfons against the Invocation of "CHRIST. Now, how can I be charged with accufing this man to BLANDRATA of not adhering ❝ to the agreement, because he difputed with me "on these subjects; when BLANDRATA urged him "to this, and on this account had invited me into

Tranfylvania, and made a provifion for my living with FRANCIS? And when FRANCIS, of his "own accord, gave me his Thefes in writing, on "the fubject of not invoking CHRIST; that I "might, if it were in my power, refute them, and “inform BLANDRATA wherein I did not agree with "him; fo that by our difputations the truth on this fubject might be investigated.

And as to the point of his converfing with others on this head, so far was I from accufing him on this ground, I rather always endeavoured, before his deceit was detected, to perfuade every perfon there was reafon to hope that FRANCIS, although he difputed sharply with me, yet would "at length acknowledge his error, as he had al"ready refrained from propagating it; for he pretended this to me, and endeavoured to make me