a just representation of the secret opinions and sentiments of their doctors. The writings therefore of these learned men must be perused with attention, in order to our knowing the hidden reasons and true principles from whence the doctrines of the Catechism are derived. It is observable, besides, that, in this Catechism, many Socinian tenets and institutions, which might have contributed to render the sect still more odious, and to expose its internal constitution too much to public view, are entirely omitted; so that it seems to have been less composed for the use of the Socinians themselves, than to impose upon strangers, and to mitigate the indignation which the tenets of this community had excited in the minds of many."

These are grave insinuations and charges to be deliberately preferred by the learned chancellor of an university, in an historical work professedly designed to convey to the pupils under his immediate superintendance, and to the world at large, a correct representation of the state of opinion among Christians in various times and countries: and it would have been well if he had condescended to verify his accusations by something in the form of evidence. How came HE to know the SECRET OPINIONS and SENTIMENTS of the Socinian doctors? By the attentive perusal of the writings of these learned men? But if in their WRITINGS they may be discovered, he might have vouchsafed to inform his readers, how they could still remain SECRET; and in what manner those REASONS and PRINCIPLES could continue HIDDEN and FICTITIOUS, which are avowed and published to the world

in printed compositions accessible to all men? Why, moreover, has not our author, as became a faithful historian, stated what those "secret opinions and sentiments" of the Socinians were, of which he speaks? What the "hidden reasons and true principles from whence the doctrines of the Catechism were derived?" Why has he not explained the nature of those "Socinian tenets and institutions" which he declares to be entirely omitted" in this Catechism, and which in his judgment "might have contributed to render the sect still more odious, and have exposed its internal constitution TOO MUCH to public view?" Had he been pleased to have added such facts and elucidations to his work, the world might have been prepared to acknowledge the JUSTICE as well as the LIBERALITY of the charge he thus solemnly denounces against a whole community of "learned men," of wilfully "IMPOSING UPON STRANGERS," with the view of "mitigating the indignation which their tenets had excited in the minds of many!"

t

It is painful to observe a writer, on many accounts so highly respectable, thus forgetting what is due to the dignity and truth of History, and indulging the feelings of a low and bigoted controversialist, by dealing out foul aspersions and dark unfounded insinuations against his theological adversaries.

The Polish Socinians always designed their Catechism to be an "accurate summary" and a "just representation" of their religious opinions. And a careful comparison of it with the published writings of the leading persons in their community will show,

that

that it is justly entitled to be regarded in this light. It omits no material article of their creed; and comprises those very "tenets and institutions" which had excited against them most "odium" and most "indignation" in the minds of religious professors of other parties. It is true, indeed, that individuals among the Unitarians dissented from some of the articles maintained in this Catechism; but their objections are openly stated in their writings; and their integrity will on examination be found to be above suspicion, and their characters were exemplary and irreproachable.

Mosheim objects further to this Catechism, that "it never obtained among the Socinians the authority of a public confession or rule of faith;" and that "hence the doctors of that sect were authorized to correct and contradict it, or to substitute another form of doctrine in its place." It would appear that this writer had no idea of a public confession of faith, except as a general rule of religious belief, carrying with it the AUTHORITY of law, and to which all men through successive generations, and in the face of increasing light and knowledge,were to be compelled by civil penalties to conform in every the minutest particular :-a notion which was natural enough in the chancellor of a Lutheran university, who was himself bound by the Confession of Augsburg, which he was not "authorized to correct or contradict," and in the place of which he could not, without forfeiting his situation, "substitute another form of doctrine." But the Polish Unitarians had other thoughts on this head, and far more enlightened views of Christian

freedom.

freedom. To adopt the judicious remarks of a late venerable and esteemed friend*,-"it would have been inconsistent with the liberty of prophesying, for which we see they argue in the preface [to the Catechism], to have limited their religious inquiries to this standard; and to have treated it as a Rule of Faith, would have been a violation of their declarations, that they dictated to no one, and assumed no authority. And the alterations their sentiments underwent, were the consequence of their avowed principles, and the result of the free inquiry they allowed. The [last] edition of the Catechism was different from a preceding publication of that kind, being in some places altered, and in some instances enlarged. This they own; and their plea is not only a justification of those alterations, but a caveat against any censure of any future changes in their religious system; and furnishes an answer to the eminent historian. We think,' say they, there is no reason to be ashamed of it, if our Church improve in some respects. We are not in every instance to cry out-I believe-I stand in my rank-here I fix my foot, and will not be removed the least from this place.-This is like the Stoics, obstinately to support every thing, and stiffly to persevere in our opinion. It is the duty of the Christian philosopher, or of the candidate for the wisdom that comes from above, to be ευπειθην, not αυθαδην ; easy to be persuaded, not pertinaciously pleasing himself; but ready to give up his opinions, when any other offers supported by stronger evidence +.'

* Dr. Toulmin;-Life of Socinus, p. 270.
↑ Præfat, ad Catechismum Pol. Eccl.

OF

THE CHURCHES OF POLAND,

Which confess, according to the Scriptures, one God, the Father, his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

First published in 1609; and since, by order of the same
Churches, corrected, and more than one half enlarged;
revised also and improved by Men eminent in
those Congregations,—

JOHN CRELLIUS, JONAS SCHLICHTINGIUS, MARTIN
RUARUS, ANDREW WISSOWATIus, Benedict
WISSOWATIUS, and an anonymous Writer
F. C.

Illustrated with their Notes.

Regula fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem, mundi conditorem: et Filium ejus Jesum Christum, natum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum à mortuis, recepium in cœlis, sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortues, per carnis resurrectionem: Hac lege fidei manente, cætera jam discipline et conversationis, admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante scilicet et proficiente usque in finem, gratia Dei.

TERTULLIAN. Lib. de Virg. Veland. cap. i.

STAUROPOLIS:

BY EULOGETUS PHILALETHES, CIOIOCLXXX.

: