On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
mies , are evidently tinctured by a feeling of partiality ; and leave room for doubt and hesitation as to the degree in which their representations may be depended upon for their fidelity and truth .
The leading facts of this case are comprised in the following particulars . George Blandrata , a physician , high in favour at court , in Transylvania , and Francis David , an eminent divine and the superiatendant of the Unitarian churches of that country , disagreed in opinion on the subject of the
invocation of Christ ; Blandrata main * taining , and David denying , its pro * priety and obligation as a religious duty . Blandrata , failing to bring over David to his sentiments , invited Faustus Socinus , then residing in Switzerland , to come into Transylvania to assist him in this work . Socintrcr
accordingly arrived , was lodged m Davids house , and for upwards of four mouths engaged with his host in the discussion of this topic David remained after all unconvinced , and
persisted in the public assertion of his opinion . He was , in consequence , arrested by orders from the prince . A general synod was convoked for the consideration and settlement of the
controversy . Before this tribunal David was arraigned on a charge of bias * phemy , was pronounced guilty , and committed to close imprisonment , which shortly terminated in his death . * After the lapse of fifteen years , So * cinns published the arguments which
had been drawn up by David and himself in the progress of their disputationsr and prefixed to the work a vindication of himself against the accusations and , as he stvles them , the
calumnies , which had been circulated to his prejudice , in consequence of the part he was thought to have taken in the persecution of his opponent , f K would lengthen this paper too much to enumerate the whole of these , and
, * Boti . Hist or ia Unitarioruin in Tran- sylvanicty pp . 82 , et seq . Lngd . 1781 . Rees ' s Historical Introduction to the Racovian Catechism , pp . xlv . et sea . London , 1 S 18 1 * u De Jesn Christi Invocatione Dis- putatio , " &c # 8 vo . JUacovi < ef 1 & 95 et 1626 . Secini Opera , Tom . II * -pp . 109 , et seq . Tottlmin ' s Life pf Socimis , pp > 8 # et seq . UBdon , 177 > :
Untitled Article
detail the replies of Socinus . It must suffice to state generally the principal charges , sfcid to subjoin a brief examination of the evidence by which they are supported . The charges : usually preferred against Socinus in this affair are ,
First , that he instigated the proceedings against David Secondly , that by an abuse of confidence and of hospitality , he furnished the materials on which the prosecution was founded . . . ¦ . . . *
And thirdly , that he assisted personally in the arrangement and direction of it . I . No attempt has ever been made , as far as now appears , to substantiate the first charge by evidence . It seems to rest solely on a vague and general assertion , that Socinus kindled the
great fire which at this time broke out in Transylvania , by which is supposed to have been intended the calamities that befel Francis David . But as the work in which this declaration is made , * was written by a person who pretended to be accurately informed concerning : the whole of the
transaction , and in a spirit of bitter hostility against Socinus , it might reasonably be thought , that he would most readily and certainly have stated his proofs , had he been in possession of any to substantiate his allegations * His silence in this respect is fatal to his testimony , and may be considered as a demonstration of the falsehood of
the charge , * . This charge is , moreover , sufficiently invalidated by the statement which the enemies of Socittus have themselves given of the origin of the rupture between Blandrata and David , and of the unrelenting hostility with which , the former acted towards the
latter in all the subsequent transactions . They tell us , that Blandrata committed a gross immoral offence , which David felt it his duty to mark with his reprobation , by abstaining from all further friendly intercourse
y \ * 1 { with him : that " Blandrata took high umbrage at this ; determined upon severe retaliation ,- —aud , in fact , made his theological difference with bin * the plea and the instrument for the gratification of , his personal resentmeat . It appears perfectly evident , ? Hq <\ . ubi supra , pp . 102 et ' sty *
Untitled Article
Faustus Socinus and Francis David . SB 8
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1818, page 383, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2477/page/39/
-