XVI. SECT. III. PART II. 66 66 CENT. ing propositions: That "the Deity, before the crea"tion of the world, had produced within himself "two personal representations, or manners of "existence [f], which were to be the medium of "intercourse between him and mortals, and by "whom consequently, he was to reveal his will, and "to display his mercy and beneficence to the chil"dren of men; that these two representatives were "the Word and the Holy Ghost; that the former "was united to the man Christ, who was born of "the Virgin Mary by an omnipotent act of the "divine will; and that, on this account, Christ, might be properly called God; that the Holy Spirit directed the course, and animated the "whole system of nature; and more especially "produced in the minds of men wise councils, "virtuous propensities, and divine feelings; and, finally, that these two Representations were to 66 cease after the destruction of this terrestrial globe, and to be absorbed into the substance of "the Deity, from whence they had been formed." This is, at least, a general sketch of the doctrine of Servetus, who, however, did not always explain his system in the same manner, nor take any pains to avoid inconsistencies and contradictions; and who frequently expressed himself in such ambiguous terms, that it is extremely difficult to learn from them his true sentiments. His system of morality agreed in many circumstances with that of the Anabaptists; whom he also imitated in censuring, with the utmost severity, the custom of Infant-Baptism. Other AntiTrinitarians. 66 VI. The pompous plans of Reformation, that had been formed by Servetus, were not only disconcerted, but even fell into oblivion, after the death [f] These representations, or manners of existence, Servetus also called economies, dispensations, dispositions, &c. for he often changed his terms in unfolding his visionary system. XVI. SECT. III. PART II. death of their author. He was, indeed, according CENT. to vulgar report, supposed, to have left behind him a considerable number of disciples; and we find in the writings of the doctors of this century, many complaints and apprehensions that seem to confirm this supposition, and would persuade us that Servetus had really founded a sect; yet, when this matter is attentively examined, there will appear just reason to doubt, whether this man left behind him any one person that might properly be called his true disciple. For those who were denominated Servetians by the theological writers of this century, not only differed from Servetus in many points of doctrine, but also varied widely from him in his doctrine of the Trinity, which was the peculiar and distinguishing point of his theological system. Valentine Gentilis, a Neapolitan, who suffered death at Bern, in the year 1566, adopted the Arian hypothesis, and not that of Servetus, as many writers have imagined; for his only error consisted in this, that he considered the Son and the Holy Ghost, as subordinate to the Father [g]. Nearly allied to this, was the doctrine of Matthew Gribaldi, a lawyer, whom a timely death in the year 1566, saved from the severity of an ecclesiastical tribunal, that was ready to pronounce sentence against him on account of his errors; for he supposed the divine nature divided into three eternal spirits, which were distinguished from each other, not only by number, but also by subordination [h]. It is not so easy to determine the par ticular [g] See Bayle's Dictionary, at the article Gentilis.-Spon. Hist. de Geneve, livr. iii. tom. ii. p. 80.-Sandii Biblioth. AntiTrinit. p. 26.-Lamy, Histoire du Socinianisme, part. II. ch. vi. p. 251.-Fuesl. Reformations. Beytrage, tom. v. p. 381. [h] Sandii Biblioth. Anti-Trinit. p. 17.-Lamy, loc. cit. part II. ch. vii. p. 257.-Spon, loc. cit. tom. ii. p. 85. not.Halerus, in Museo Tigurino, tom. ii. p. 114. PART II. CENT. ticular charge that was brought against Alciat, a XVI. native of Piedmont, and Sylvester Tellius, who SECT. III. were banished from the city and territory of Geneva, in the year 1559; nor do we know, with any degree of certainty, the errors that were embraced by Paruta, Leonardi, and others [i], who were ranked among the followers of Servetus. It is, however, more than probable, that none of the persons now mentioned were the disciples of Servetus, or adopted the hypothesis of that visionary innovator. The same thing may be affirmed with respect to Gonesius, who is said to have embraced the doctrine of that unhappy man, and to have introduced it into Poland [k]; for, though he maintained some opinions that really resembled it in some of its points; yet his manner of explaining the mystery of the Trinity was totally different from that of Servetus. Erroneous accounts of VII. It is evident that none of the persons, now the origin mentioned, professed that form or system of theological of Socinianism. [i] For an account of these, and other persons of the same class, see Sandius, Lamy, and also Lubieniecius, his Historia Reformat. Polonica, lib. ii. cap. v. p. 96.-There is a particular and ample account of Alciat given by Bayle, in the first volume of his Dictionary; see also Spon, loc. cit. tom. ii. p. 85, 86. [k] This is affirmed upon the authority of Wissowatius and Lubieniecius; but the very words of the latter will be sufficient to shew us upon what grounds. These words (Hist. Reformat. Polon. cap. vi. p. 111.) are as follows: "Is serveti sententiam de præ eminentia patris in patriam attulit, eamque non dissimulavit," i. e. Gonesius introduced into Poland the opinion embraced by Servetus in relation to the pre-eminence of the Father, and was by no means studious to conceal it. Who now does not see, that, if it was the pre-eminence of the Father that Gonesius maintained, he must have differed considerably from Servetus, whose doctrine removed all real distinction in the divine nature? The reader will do well to consult Sandius (loc. cit. p. 40.) concerning the sentiments of Gonesius; since it is from this writer, that Lamy has borrowed the greatest part of what he has advanced in his Histoire Socinianisme, tom. ii. chap. x. p. 278. XVI. SECT. III. PART II. logical doctrine, that is properly called Socinian- CENT. ism, the origin of which is, by the writers of that sect, dated from the year 1546, and placed in Italy. 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 farther, that the principal members of this clandestine society, were Lælius, 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 [1]. 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 in 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 Socini. PART II. Το CENT. the account of the origin of Socinianism, that XVI. is generally given by the writers of that sect. To SECT. III. 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 been now mentioned [m]. VIII. While, [m] See Gustav. Georg. Zeltneri Historia Crypto-Socinianismi Altorfini, 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 superstitions 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 |