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
that iti taft invitation of Socinus to Transylvania , and in the arrangements made for fm residence in DavftTfe bouse , thf re wat , oh tfae part of BIa » - drata , much more of private 'malice ,
than of religious zeal , or a picas regard to the honour sf Ohrfct There is , indeed , scarcely room to doubt , but that Blandrata was pursuing through the whole business a dark and deep laid scheme for the overthrow and destruction of David . Tfee truth ,
therefore , seems to be , that tire charge of instigating the prosecution agaiust Francis David , must be transferred from Socinus , against whom it ought nfcver to have been preferred , to Blandrata , whose conduct clearly proves itim-to ' have-been the main director of
all the proceedings In addition to thfe presumptive evidence of this , furnished b ) the fact * of the case , the Allowing testimony may be taken
from the pen of Blandrata himself . iAfter Socinus had reported to him the « n 9 UOeessful termination of his disputations with David , Bland rat a writes tdf him : —> «« Tell -Francis that thus far
1 nave not declared myself his enemy to flife pritK » e , but henceforth he may regard tfie as such / 1 * A ftW days subsequently were issued to tlie Senate of Coloswkr , the orders of ? lie prih ce fbt the deposition and arrest of ( lie superinterHJant It It is charged farther against SocinuB , tffirart he furnished the materials
for the prosecution , and this too , by & breach of confidence and hospita-Mfcv * There fe not thf slights grotind ft # tfce latter p « frt of tlrts atct&fcticm ; it is therfefare iin necessary td -dH ^ iell uiiMi h here .
A ^ re ^ aWy to tflh ^ ort ^ iha krrkvig £ - mtait , made tttth the cone lilVentr ^ bf David hinr ^ lf , SodnUs tr ? itoihHt ^ to Bfcuidrata , from time to titri ^ the ^^ Jttfen at ^ m ^ its which wete di-nWn -iip Ki the course of the rfrsputaf ions . Ahd
IHM these do ^ utttteiits bfeeri etliployed tti IHe Rronnd wdrk of tW * dh ^ rgds iti be ? Exhibited against DiiVid Bfefdr ^ tim Synod , no blam ^ could hrfve attat ^ herl to Socintis for making tm t ^ yifaikiiinf-^ Mftti oi ^ . Brit Bl ^ tiai-kta rfid ndikt rill
avtfil himself of the « e payers . He wsti by no tneans satisft ^ wit h tb ^ m ^ tWner m iWiidi Sorinm had managed rtr ^
Untitled Article
controv ^ iiy * He did not tburk that 6 e had met the objecttoDs of his op ^ ponent ili the way that he flight to have done , and maintained the obligation of invoking Clirist , on ijie highest and best ground . On-thfe to
account he ^ vas unwillmg give publicity to his arguments . The mmtx charge actually preferred agattistl > av id at his trial was > that on the fi * st Simday after the termination bf bfs conferences with Socinus , he had pubHclj declared , in preaching to the people , * ' that Christ otight not to be invoked
in prayer ; and that those who prayed to him , sinned as mu ^ h as if they prayed to the Virgin Mary , or Peter or Paul of any other dead saints , " It is not pretended that this accusation was made by Sociwus ; nor is th ^ ere aiiy evideDcie of his bseing slmbngtte auditors of David vvhea the words are
alleged td hav ^ been < u ttere < L The officer of the court , when hk read the charge , expressly stated , that the information hard been communicated 16 ttote prince , by the brethren , the diBefc pies afnd associates of David , who w ^ te theft present among his accusers , by
that is to say ^ other ministers of Coldswar , who had on this occasion joined themselves to Blandrata , There is , therefore , no evidence to criminate Socinus on thfe second charge of hisiving furnished the materials for the prosecutibn of David .
III . It is alleged in the next ftlwtfr , that Socinus lent his persohal assistance ; in the arrawgement and direction © f the prcwecutidn . Socihi ^ admits that it was at one time his intention to have been
present at < 1 fete Synod convened for th ^ settlenieiit of tMs controversy , having reeeit ^ d the coitimande of the prince to attend . t * e also states that he had ; m cott « Hqii 6 nce < if tiris , drawn up his answers W David ' s arguments , with the v » te # tff * nvitig them ready to ^ rodUt e , hi cane thl' assembly Should
wish to be made acquaintied with them . It is , however , to hft observed ^ tijat Socinus seem * , to ' . nave thoujght tfiat the l > U 8 i ness < rf the Synod vyoulNl tye to dJiseu ^ s , ; ^; theologians , the controversy which had been agitated tbe * tween David aiid hinlD ^ elf , fend wot , & » aft ^ rwardb j ^ roved < to be its design , to »» In ju ^ m ^ lt * i . tlMi" WaJrtfcy ^^^ ijr tenftaiit , for Afe prbirinlgation ttf ill leged blasphemiea against Oofl * MI
Untitled Article
984 i ^ b ^ lia iSS ^^
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1818, page 384, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2477/page/40/
-