divines make it their business to cry him down. I beseech you in particular, to keep a watchful eye over it, and to make an apology for our church, at least in your confutation inscribed to the emperor. We know not how that beast

came to creep in among us. He wrests all the passages of the scripture, to prove that the Son is not co-eternal, and consubstantial with the Father, and that the man Christ is the Son of God.' Oecolampadii & Zuingl. Epis.

In the foregoing letter the writer expresses himself neither like a gentleman, nor like a christian. However, we are told, when the same Oecolampadius made a discourse in the presence of the magistrates of Basil, to show that De Trinitatis Erroribus was a pernicious book, he expressed himself with great moderation. Whether this arose from his having thought further on the subject, and discovered that abuse is a poor substitute for argument, or that the awe he felt in the presence of his superiors restrained his temper, and curbed the violence of his zeal, we are not informed. It is said he also wrote two letters to Servetus, about his book, wherein he endeavored to confute him in a very civil manner, and intreated him to

renounce his errors.

His endeavoring to con fute him in a civil manner was very proper; it was much better than calling him a beast, and talking of crying him down; but his intreating him to renounce his errors, before he had convinced him they were errors, was inconsistent: it was either persuading him to act contrary to the convictions of his own mind, i. e. to be a hypocrite; or it implied that he was to take for granted that what his opponents condemned was really false, i. e. that he was to acknowledge their dominion over his faith, No man can honestly renounce his opinions however erroneous they may seem in the eyes of others, until he is convinced they are false: to intreat him to do it is to intreat him to act dishonestly. Oecolampadius took for granted the very point in question, that his own opinions were divine truths, and those of his opponent manifest errors; and he seemed to think that Servetus should admit this; otherwise how could he intreat him to change his opinions before he acknowledged himself convinced they were wrong? This mistake has been common among all the usurpers of dominion over conscience, from the first creed-mongers down to the dogmatists of the present day. To persuade men to renounce what they believe to be true,

is a gross insult to the understanding, and has a direct vicious tendency. For men professedly orthodox to talk as if their notions were indubitable, and identical with the gospel, and as if whatever opposes them must be unquestionably false, is an indirect assumption of infallibility, and lordship over the faith of others: it is one of the first principles of popery, and has ever proved the bane of free enquiry after truth.

In the year 1533, Melancthon wrote a letter to Joachim Camerarius, wherein he told him what he thought of Servetus and his books: among other things he says that he was always afraid disputes about the trinity would break out, some time or other.' And adds "Good God! what tragedies will this question whether the Logos or word be an hypostasis, or subsistence, or person; whether the spirit be so likewise? raise among posterity.' This same Melancthon, who seemed so much to deplore the tragedies which the above question would occasion, on hearing that Servetus' book, concerning the trinity, was dispersed in Italy, and very much approved of by many Italians, wrote a letter to the senate of Venice, in the year

1539, importing that a book of Servetus', who had revived the errors of Paulus Samosatenus, was handed about in their country. He besought them to use their utmost endeavors, that the impious errors of that man might be avoided, rejected, and abhorred. What was this but to stimulate those tragedies, with the bare apprehension of which he professed to be so much affected? What could the tendency of such a letter be but to rouse the demon of persecu. tion ?

Such were the measures adopted by the professed reformers to stop the progress of free enquiry, and counteract the efforts of Servetus to promote a further reformation. They treated him with scurrility; they endeavored to prevent the circulation of his books by all the 'means in their power; they labored to prejudice his cause every where; their object was to cry him down; even a popish senate was invoked to use their utmost endeavors to cause his doctrine to be avoided, rejected, and abhorred, i. e. in plain language, to suppress his writings, with the whole weight of their power and authority, and to proscribe all who might seem to countenance them. Was it for this they cast off their sovereign lord the pope, broke the yoke of his tyranny from their necks, and

abjured the church of Rome; that they might be popes themselves, impose a yoke of bondage upon the necks of others, and form a church after the model of that they had abjured? Was it for this that they put the scriptures into the hands of the people, and made so loud an outcry against the errors and abominations of popery; that they might anathematize those who gave a different sense of scripture to themselves? Was it that they might be sole arbiters in religious controversy, and regarded as the infallible expositors of scripture, that they rejected the infallibility of popes and councils? If not why did they attempt to suppress the writings of those who differed from them?

SECTION III.

Servetus publishes a second book on the trinity.

Unmoved by the censures and reproaches of reputed orthodox divines, the next year, 1532, he published another book against the trinity. This also was printed at Haguenau. In an aḍ vertisement to the reader, he retracted what he had before published against the common doctrine of the trinity; not because he thought it