into Poland on account of their religious opinions, a considerable number appears to have consisted of anabaptists, or of those to whom this designation was applied. Many of them were men of education and learning, of sound principles and unimpeachable moral characters. It is to one of these that the introduction of Unitarianism into Poland is to be ascribed.

In the year 1546, a native of Holland, who went by the name of Spiritus, but who is supposed on good grounds to have been Adam Pastor, already noticed above, settled at Cracow. Being one day in the library of John Tricessius, a person of high celebrity in that city, distinguished for his literary acquirements, who had invited him to meet some of the most eminent men of the place, he took down by accident a book wherein he observed prayers addressed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He immediately exclaimed,-"What! have you then three Gods?" The conversation to which this question led made a deep impression on the minds of all the party, but especially on that of Andrew Fricius Modrevius, the king's secretary, who shortly afterwards, in consequence of prosecuting his inquiries upon the subject, abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity, and appeared as the open advocate of Unitarianism in a work which he published under the title of Sylvæ*. This proved an important event to the new settlers, and greatly contributed to the spread and establishment of their opinions.

About the time when Spiritus first appeared in Po

* Sandii Biblioth. Antitrin. p. 36.

land,

land, a circumstance occurred in Italy which it will be proper to notice in this place, as it conduced in an eminent degree to the future progress of the Unitarian cause in the former country. While Luther and Melancthon in Germany, and Zwinglius, Calvin, and their associates in Switzerland, were prosecuting the work of Reformation, the public attention was drawn by their labours and writings to the corruptions of the Church of Rome, in some of the Italian states, and more particularly in that of Venice. Several persons distinguished for their rank and learning formed themselves into a society at Vicenza, a small town in this district, for the purpose of discussing with freedom the principles of the popular creed, and promoting the study of the Scriptures. In the prosecution of their inquiries they renounced the doctrine of the Trinity; and they are reported to have held that there is but one most high God, who created all things by his mighty word, and preserves them by his will and good providence; and that his only be-gotten Son, Jesus Christ, was as to his nature a man, but not merely a man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary.

The place of meeting, and the opinions of this society, having come to the knowledge of the officers of the Inquisition, their deliberations were suddenly interrupted. Three of the members were seized, of whom one (James de Chiar) died in prison, and two (Julius Trevisanus and Francis de Ruego) were put to death at Venice; the rest were obliged to seek their safety in flight. In the number of those who

escaped

escaped are commonly named Lælius Socinus, Niccola Paruta, Valentine Gentilis, Darius Socinus, Francis Niger, and John Paul Alciatus, and also, though it should seem erroneously, Bernard Ochin. Paruta, Gentilis, Darius Socinus, and Alciatus, settled in Moravia, but Lælius Socinus fixed his residence at Zurich*.

This

* Narratio compendiosa &c. Auctore Andrea Wissowatio, ad calcem Sandii Biblioth. Antitrin. p. 209. Biblioth. Antitrin. in vita L. Socini, Nic. Parutæ, J. P. Alciati, pp. 19, 25, § 27. Lubieniecii Hist. Reform. Polonicæ, p. 38.

Mosheim (Cent. xvi. sect. iii. part ii. note) professes to doubt the truth of this statement with respect to the rise of Unitarianism in Italy, and to question even the existence of this college, or society, at Vincenza: but the reasons on which he grounds his suspicions are extremely weak, and very insufficient to invalidate the general authenticity of the account. He objects, first, that “it is extremely improbable, nay, utterly incredible, that all the persons who are said to have been present at these assemblies were really so ;"-and he mentions in particular, Bernard Ochin, and Lælius Socinus. But, allowing that this were the case, an error in the enumeration of some names ought not, upon any rule of criticism, to be admitted as of itself a decisive proof of the falsehood of the whole of the story. Besides, Mosheim has by no means demonstrated, that these two celebrated individuals could not have been members of this association. It is, indeed, clear that Bernard Ochin could not have belonged to it in 1546, the year in which it is stated to have been dispersed, as he appears to have quitted Italy in 1543, and perhaps he might never haye attended its deliberations. There is nothing, however, to render such a circumstance "utterly incredible," or "extremely improbable;" for his residence in that part of Italy, and his attachment to the principles of the Reformation, while he yet officiated in the Roman church, render it, on the contrary, very likely that he might on some occasions hold private conferences with persons of congenial views and feelings. But there is certainly no good evidence of his having at this period embraced antitrinitarian sentiments. Mosheim's reasons for concluding that Lælius Socinus could not have been present at these assemblies, are extremely frivolous,-namely, that it cannot be supposed that so young a man, then only twenty

one

This eminent person was born at Sienna in Tuscany, in the year 1525, and educated for the profes

sion

one years of age, "would leave the place of his nativity (Sienna) and repair to Venice or Vincenza, without any other view than that of disputing freely on certain points of religion;" or "that a youth of such inexperience should obtain the first rank and supreme authority in an assembly composed of so many eminently learned and ingenious men.' To the former of these reasons, our objector's own translator, Dr. Maclaine, has sufficiently replied "Is such a supposition really so absurd? Is not a spirit of enthusiasm, or even an uncommon degree of zeal, adequate to the production of such an effect?" With respect to the latter, the least consideration will show that there was nothing so very extraordinary in his obtaining these distinctions, if we take into account his splendid talents, his extensive acquirements, the high rank of his family and the influence possessed by them in that part of Italy. It may however be conceded to Mosheim, that this society was not "the source and nursery of the whole Unitarian sect," and that the Unitarian system of doctrine, as it was afterwards professed, was not arranged and digested here in the manner intimated by Lubieniecius in the passage above referred to of his History of the Polish Reformation.

Mosheim refers, in confirmation of his own opinion on this subject, to the German work of Fueslin, Reformations Beträgen. A summary of the principal objections of this writer has been given by Bock (Hist. Antitrin. tom. ii. p. 405). In addition to those which Mosheim has himself urged, Fueslin observes, 1. that "neither Sandius, nor Wissowatius, adduces any authorities as the source of his information:" and 2. that "no other writer makes any express mention of those persons who are said to have perished by the hand of the executioner, though every sect is forward to celebrate its martyrs." With respect to the first of these objections, it ought to be recollected that one of these historians, Andrew Wissowatius, may himself be regarded in the light of an original authority. He held a very distinguished rank among the Unitarian body in Poland, and was a lineal descendant, in no very remote degree, of the family of the Socini, being the grandson of Faustus Socinus by his daughter Agnes, who had married Stanislaus Wissowatius. He was therefore likely to have been accus

rately

sion of the law, in which many individuals of his family had raised themselves to the highest distinction. Having

rately informed as to the circumstances which led to the expatriation of his family. Sandius must have written from the information communicated to him by the Polish Unitarians. He is, however, an historian of high respectability, who was not likely to put his credit to the hazard by such a statement, without having previously satisfied himself of the sufficiency of the evidence by which it was supported. As to the second objection, it must perhaps be admitted that, as far as appears, there is no direct mention of the persons who are said to have perished, in the work of any contemporary writer. I have failed to discover any in the numerous Italian histories and chronicles of this period which I have had the opportunity of examining; and the learned Bock, after the laborious investigation of voluminous documents relating to those times, makes the same confession. He supposes however that some light might be thrown on this subject, could a certain work of Francis Niger, one of the enumerated members of the Vincenza society, he discovered, the title of which he gives as followsBrevis Historia de Fanini Faventini, ac Dominici Bassanensis morte, qui nuper ob Christum in Italia Rom. Pont. jussu impie occisi sunt, a. 1550. But, after all, there is nothing very remarkable in the silence of contemporary historians upon an execution of this nature. It is to be apprehended that many of a similar kind have occurred in Catholic countries, which have had no register or memorial beyond that of the tradition which may have been preserved and perpetuated (as might be the case in this instance) among their families and their friends. It might be mentioned as a circumstance tending to authenticate the statement of Wissowatius and Lubieniecius, that they give the names of the sufferers.

It has been judged proper to say thus much here on this subject, as it involves a material question of fact in connexion with the history of Unitarianism. Bock, a much higher authority in this case than Mosheim, devoted a large share of his attention to the investigation of this point, and has published a very satisfactory dissertation upon it, in his History of Antitrinitarianism, vol. ii. p. 395-421,which is recommended to the reader's perusal.

Mosheim refers in his note to Zeltner's Historia Crypto-So

cinismi