and on the side of the Trinitarians, Peter Melius. It terminated, however, without accomplishing the object for which it was convened. In the following year, Francis David, with the concurrence, and under the authority of the prince, convoked another synod, of the ministers of Transylvania and Hungary, which was held at the town of Waradin, on the 10th of October. On this occasion, David drew up a series of propositions for the consideration of the assembly, and comprising the sentiments of the Unitarians with respect to the unity of God, the person of Christ, and the nature of the Holy Spirit*. At this synod again, the chief speakers on the opposite sides were David and Melius. Blandrata was present, but took no part in the public discussions, in consequence, it is thought, of his ill success at the former meeting. The deliberations of this assembly concluded, like those of all the preceding synods, without effecting any thing towards the reconciliation of the contending parties. Before their separation the ministers of the Orthodox Churches delivered in a written confession of their faith in opposition to the propositions of David, wherein, after stating their own sentiments, they condenın in no very formed of all parties in passing this edict, an union to which they were led by weighty public reasons, they were designated UNITI, or UNITARII. This title was afterwards restricted to those persons who maintained that the Father alone was the true and eternal God, and by them read ly adopted of their own accord ;-while those who held that there were three persons in one essence, were by way of opposition styled Trinitarii. * Bod, ubi supra, p. 57. gentle gentle terms, as "heretical blasphemies," the system of the Unitarians*. Not contented with this, Melius, full of zeal for the interest of his party, afterwards addressed a formal letter to the prince, wherein he labours to prejudice his mind against Blandrata and his followers. But in this object he wholly failed, the prince having continued to afford them his protection and patronage until the time of his death, which took place on the 14th of March 1571. John Sigismund was succeeded by Stephen Bathor, who ascended the throne with a disposition to preserve to all classes of his subjects the same freedom of religious worship as they had enjoyed during the reign of his predecessor. On taking possession of his government, he declared that he was the king of the people, and not of their consciences :-that God had reserved three things to himself; To create something out of nothing, to know future events, and to rule men's consciences,-that therefore to tyrannize over conscience was the greatest wickedness, and an invasion of the prerogative of Heaven†. In the year 1574, the prosperity of the Unitarian cause was seriously affected by an unfortunate rupture between the two individuals to whom it had chiefly owed its advancement and success. Blandrata having been guilty of a gross offence, which his accusers have veiled under the designation of peccatum * Bod, ubi supra, pp. 67 et seqq. + Idem, p. 83. Italicum, Italicum, David declined all further intercourse with him, and took measures to destroy his influence in the Unitarian body. This conduct naturally drew upon him the enmity of Blandrata, and paved the way for those proceedings which terminated in his death. Blandrata, well knowing the high estimation in which the venerable superintendant was held in the country, felt it necessary to act against him with great art and circumspection. Though liberty was granted to all religious parties alike to conduct public worship on their own principles, there existed at this time a law that none of them should be allowed to promulgate any new doctrine without previously obtaining the permission of the national council. Blandrata learnt that David had violated this ordinance, by maintaining in a public discourse that Christ could not with propriety be addressed in prayer, since he was not God by nature, an opinion which was then gaining ground among the Unitarians, but had formed no part of their creed when the public profession of it had been originally permitted. His first step, after receiving this information, was to request him to desist from this conduct, intimating, with an appearance of friendship, that if he persisted the Unitarians, including himself, might not be allowed to remain in the country: and then, under pretence of clearing them Bod, ubi supra, pp. 84 et 102. The authority for this account is a letter addressed by some of the Unitarian ministers of Transylvania to Palæologus, who was then absent, conveying to him an account of the proceedings against David. Bod has given this important document entire. selves selves from suspicion, and securing the interest of the party, he recommended to David to unite with him in accusing two or three ministers of this offence, and procuring their condemnation. But the pious superintendant treated this vile and insidious proposal with becoming indignation. Blandrata had now recourse to another scheme. He wrote to Faustus Socinus, who was then residing at Basil, inviting him to come to Transylvania to aid him in controverting and suppressing the opinion of David, promising to defray all the expenses of his journey, and of his residence in that country. Socinus accordingly arrived at Coloswar about the middle of November 1578. Blandrata, the more effectually to prosecute his design, contrived that Socinus should be lodged in David's house, but, it should seem, carefully concealed from both of them the real motive of his conduct. During Socinus's residence with the venerable superintendant which lasted four months and a half, from November 1578 till April 1579*, he and his host had frequent disputations on the great point concerning which they mainly differed,-the invocation of Christ. At the conclusion of these conferences both the disputants appear to have remained just where they were at the commencement of them, except that the warmth into which they had occasionally been betrayed had excited on either side * Lampii Historia Ecclesia Reformata in Hungaria et Tranylvania, p. 303. Bod, ubi supra, p. 86. a con a considerable degree of irritation, and of personal dislike and animosity*. By agreement, the arguments in this controversy were from time to time committed to writing, and the papers were regularly transmitted by Socinus to Blandrata. In making these communications, Socinus's motives have been severely arraigned by the friends of David; and he has been charged with voluntarily engaging with Blandrata in a plot to ensnare and ruin his host, while he was enjoying his confidence and friendship, and partaking of his hospitalities. But as far as can be collected from the evidence now before the public, Socinus appears to have done this with no other view than that of informing Blandrata, at whose solicitation he had engaged in this controversy, in what manner it was proceeding, and with what effect, as respected the mind of his opponent†. The attempt to convince David of the error of his doctrine having failed, it became the next object to restrain him from the public assertion and dissemination of it. Socinus states that he frequently admonished him on this head, and advised him to silence not only from his own persuasion of the pernicious tendency of what he calls his IMPIOUS tenet, but also The English reader will find some account of the arguments adduced by the contending parties in this controversy in Mr. Lindsey's "Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine from the Reformation to our own Times,” pp. 174, &c. + Socini Opera, tom. ii. p. 710. Toulmin's Life of Socinus, P.85. on |