XVI.

logical doctrine, that is properly called Socinian-CENT. ism, the origin of which is, by the writers of that SECT. III. sect, dated from the year 1546, and placed in Italy. PART II. These writers tell us, that, in this very year, above forty persons eminently distinguished by their learning and genius, and still more by their generous zeal for truth, held secret assemblies, at different times, in the territory of Venice, and particularly at Vicenza, in which they deliberated concerning a general reformation of the received systems of religion, and, in a more especial manner, undertook to refute the peculiar doctrines that were afterwards publicly rejected by the Socinians. They tell us further, that the principal members of this clandestine society, were LALIUS, SOCINUS, ALCIAT, OCHINUS, PARUTA, and GENTILIS; that their design was divulged, and their meetings discovered, by the temerity and imprudence of some of their associates; that two of them were apprehended and put to death; while the rest, being dispersed, sought a refuge in Switzerland, Germany, Moravia, and other countries, and that SOCINUS, after having wandered up and down in several parts of Europe, went into Poland, first in the year 1551, and afterwards in 1558, and there sowed the seeds of his doctrine, which, in process of time, grew apace, and produced a rich and abundant harvest []. Such is

the

[1] See the Bibliotheca Anti-Trinit. p. 18 & 25. of Sandius, who mentions some writings that are supposed to have been published by the clandestine society of pretended Reformers at Venice and Vicenza; though the truth of this supposition is extremely dubious;-Andr. Wissowatii Narratio quomodo in Polonia Reformati ab Unitariis separati sunt, which is subjoined to the Biblioth. of Sandius, p. 209, 210.-The reader may likewise consult Lubieniecius, Histor. Reformat. Polon. lib. ii. cap. i. p. 38. who intimates, that he took this account of the origin of Socinianism from the manuscript Commentaria of Budzinus, and his Life of Lælius Socinus. See also Sam. Przipcovius, in Vita Secini.

XVI. SECT. Ali

CENT. the account of the origin of Socinianism, that is gene.ally given by the writers of that sect. To PART IL assert that it is, in every circumstance, fictitious and false, would perhaps be going too far; but, on the other hand, it is easy to demonstrate that the system of religion, commonly called Socinianism, was neither invented nor drawn up in those meetings at Venice, and Vicenza, that have now been mentioned [m].

VIII. While,

[m] See Gustav. Georg. Zeltneri Historia Crypto-Socinianismi Altorni, cap. ii. sect. xli. p. 321. note.This writer seems to think that the inquiries that have hitherto been made into this affair are by no means satisfactory; and he therefore wishes that some men of learning, equal to the task, would examine the subject anew.-This, indeed, were much to be wished. In the mean time, I shall venture to offer a few observations, which may perhaps, contribute to cast some light upon this matter. That there was, in reality, such a society as is mentioned in the text, is far from being improbable. Many circumstances and relations prove sufficiently, that immediately after the Reformation had taken place in Germany, secret assemblies were held, and measures proposed, in several provinces that were still under the jurisdiction of Rome, with a view to combat the errors and superstition of the times. It is also, in a more especial manner, probable, that the territory of Venice was the scene of these deliberations; since it is well known, that a great number of the Venetians at this time, though they had no personal attachment to Luther, approved, nevertheless, of his design of reforming the corrupt state of religion, and wished well to every attempt that was made to restore Christianity to its native and primitive simplicity. It is farther highly credible, that these assemblies were interrupted and dispersed by the vigilance of the papal emissaries, that some of their members were apprehended and put to death, and that the rest saved themselves by flight. All this is probable enough; but 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 I therefore adopt willingly the opinion of those who affirm, that many persons, who, in after-times, distinguished themselves from the multitude by opposing the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, were considered as members of the Venetian society, by ignorant writers, who looked upon that society as the source and nursery of the whole Unitarian sect. It is certain, for instance, that Ochinus is erroneously placed among the mem

bers

VIII. While, therefore, we reject this inaccu-C E N T. rate account of the matter under consideration, it

is

XVI. SECT. III. PART II.

The real

origin

bers of the famous society now mentioned; for, not to insist, upon the circumstance, that it is not sufficiently clear whether in of he was really a Socinian or not, it appears undeniably, from Socinianthe Annales Capucinorum of BOVERIUS, as well as from other ism. unquestionable testimonies, that he left Italy so early as the year 1543, and went from thence to Geneva. See a singular book, entitled, La Guerre Seraphique, ou l'Histoire des perils qu'a courus la Barbe des Capuchins, livr. iii. p. 191. 216 What I have said of OCHINUS may be confidently affirmed with respect to LELIUS SOCINUS, who, though reported to have been at the head of the society now under consideration, was certainly never present at any of its meetings. For how can we suppose that a young man, only one-and-twenty years old, would leave the place of his nativity, repair to Venice or Vicenza, and that without any other view than the pleasure of disputing freely on certain points of religion? Or how could it happen, that a youth of such unexperienced years should acquire such a high degree of influence and authority, as to obtain the first rank, and the principal direction, in an assombly composed of so many eminently learned and ingenious men? Besides, from the Life of LELIUS, which is still extant, and from other testimonies of good authority, it is easy to shew, that it was the desire of improvement, and the hope of being aided, in his inquiries after truth, by the conversation of learned men in foreign nations, that induced him to leave Italy, and not the apprehension of persecution and death, as some have imagined. It is also certain, that he returned into his native country afterwards, and, in the year 1551, remained some time at Sienna, while his father lived at Bologna. See his letter to BULLINGER, in the Museum Helveticum, tom. v. p. 489. Now surely it cannot easily be imagined, that a man in his senses would return to a country from whence, but a few years before, he had been obliged to fly, in order to avoid the terrors of a babarous inquisition and a violent death. .

But, waving this question for a moment, let us suppose all the accounts, we have from the Socinians, concerning this famous assembly of Venice and Vicenza, and the members of which it was composed, to be true and exact; yet it remains to be proved, that the Socinian system of doctrine was invented and drawn up in that assembly. This the Socinian writers maintain; and this, as the case appears to me, may be safely

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?

VOL. IV.

Kk

denied

XVI.

CENT is incumbent upon us to substitute a better in its SECT. III. place; and, indeed, the origin and progress of the PART II. Socinian doctrine seem easy to be traced out by

such as are acquainted with the history of the church during this century. There were certain sects and doctors, against whom the zeal, vigil. ance and severity of Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists, were united, and, in opposing whose settlement and progress, these three communions, forgetting their dissensions, joined their most vigorous counsels and endeavours. The objects of

their

denied. For the Socinian doctrine is undoubtedly of much later date than this assembly; it also passed through different hands, and was, during many years, reviewed and corrected by men of learning and genius, and thus underwent various changes and improvements before it was formed into a regular, permanent, and connected system. To be convinced of this, it will be sufficient to cast an eye upon the opinions, doctrines, and reasonings, of several of the members of the famous society, so often mentioned; which vary in such a striking manner, as shew manifestly that this society had no fixed views, nor had ever agreed upon any consistent form of doctrine. We learn, moreover, from many circumstances in the life and transactions of Lælius Socinus, that this man had not, when he left Italy, laid the plan of a regular system of religion; and it is well known, that, for many years afterwards, his time was spent in doubting, inquiring, and disputing; and that his ideas of religious matters were extremely fluctuating and unsettled. So that it seems probable to me, that the man died in this state of hesitation and uncertainty, before he had reduced his notions to any consistent form. As to Gribaldi and Alciat, who have been already mentioned, it is manifest that they inclined towards the Arian system, and did not entertain such low ideas of the person and dignity of Jesus Christ, as those that are adopted among the Socinians. From all this it appears abundantly evident, that these Italian Reformers, if their famous society ever existed in reality (which I admit here as a probable supposition rather than as a fact sufficiently attested) were dispersed and obliged to seek their safety in a voluntary exile, before they had agreed about any regular system of religious doctrine. So that this account of the origin of Socinianism is rather imaginary than real, though it has been inconsiderately adopted by many writers. Fueslin has alleged several arguments against it in his German work, entitled Reformations Beytragen, tom. iii. p. 327.

XVI

their common aversion, were the Anabaptists, and C ENT. those who denied the Divinity of CHRIST, and, SECT. III. a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. To avoid PART II. the unhappy consequences of such a formidable opposition, great numbers of both classes retired into Poland, from this persuasion, that in a country whose inhabitants were passionately fond of freedom, religious liberty could not fail to find a refuge. However, on their first arrival, they proceeded with circumspection and prudence, and explained their sentiments with much caution and a certain mixture of disguise, not knowing surely what might happen, nor how far their opinions would be treated with indulgence. Thus they lived in peace and quiet during several years, mixed with the Lutherans and Calvinists, who had already obtained a solid settlement in Poland, and who admitted them into their communion, and even into the assemblies where their public deliberations were held. They were not, however, long satisfied with this state of constraint, notwithstanding the privileges with which it was attended; but, having insinuated themselves into the friendship of several noble and opulent families, they began to act with more spirit, and even to declare in an open manner, their opposition to certain doctrines that were generally received among Christians. Hence arose violent contests between them and the Swiss, or Reformed churches, with which they had beeri principally connected. These dissensions drew the attention of the government, and occasioned, in the year 1565, a resolution of the diet of Petrikow, ordering the innovators to separate themselves from the churches already mentioned, and to form a distinct congregation or sect [n]. These founders

[n] Lamy, Histoire du Socinianisme, part I. chap. vi. &c. P. 16.-Stoinii Epitome Originis Unitariorum in Polonia, apud Kk 2 Sandium