in the death as well as the imprisonment of David. But why "useless?" Because, says R. S., Blandrata was incensed at David, because he had reproved Blandrata for having committed a gross moral offence. This is not the account given by Socinus himself in his "Epistola Dedicatoria." At a Synod held at Thord, David had caused certain resolutions to be passed in opposition to the invocation of Christ, contrary, as alleged, to a pledge given both to Blandrata and Socinus. 66 This," in the words of Socinus, "was the beginning and the torch of that conflagration;" and "Blandrata was much offended at the decrees of that Synod." If, then, the offence was not a personal one, Socinus might have succeeded in mitigating its rancour; and even if it were a personal offence, earnest entreaty and expostulation could hardly have been used in vain. But if Blandrata were inexorable, the prince might have been placated; and when Socinus intimated to David that he was incurring danger by his conduct, David threw himself on the prince, and declared that “he had no fear, but had the means of showing he had done nothing for which the prince should be angry with him.” Yet does Socinus appear to have appealed from the servant to the master? The prince knew the prominent part Socinus had taken in the affair, and would hardly have refused him a hearing when wishing to plead for mercy, and that, too, for an opponent. Then there was the party of David—a powerful party. Why did not Socinus unite himself with them, when he saw matters going to an extremity. He meant to appear at the Synod which condemned David-probably as his accuser, but he kept away. Why was he not there in order to prevent excess? He had got his opponent in the toils, and there he left him.

Mr. Yates affirms that Dr. Rees (the R. S. of the Repository)" examines the question in all its details, showing that the charge is utterly destitute of foundation." If I understand my respected friend Mr. Yates rightly, he is here mistaken, for Dr. Rees in the commencement of his very excellent paper, allows that Socinus's "warmest admirers and ablest advocates have not been able wholly to efface" the "imputation" of "acting the part of a persecutor." I shall now translate some parts of what that impartial and exact historian Bock, who has been thought to lean no little to the side of Unitarianism, has written on the subject in his notice of the life and writings of

Socinus, found in the second vol. of his "Historia Antitrinitariorum," page 669 et seq. "By his (David's) death Socinus brought on himself blame and hatred from many persons who were on the side of David, and who judged that Socinus and Blandrata were the advisers of the prince in this persecution and death, and this opinion is not without all show of reason. Who can allow himself to be persuaded, that Socinus did not give his vote in favour of the sentence against David, since he did not plead with the prince in opposition to it, but rather allowed what Blandrata suggested to the prince to be carried into effect, without any interposition or discomposure. The imputations laid to his charge in this matter, he laboured to remove in his dedicatory letter to the Transylvanian ministers, of his account of the controversy with David; but they altogether dissented from him, calling to mind, that in the whole of this business the prince did nothing without the advice of Blandrata, and that Blandrata came to no determination himself, nor suggested any thing to the prince, without having first consulted his oracle Socinus. Socinus wearied with the accusation respecting the death of David, retired into Poland, and sought for admittance into communion with the churches there, who worshipped the Father as the only God. But he met with a repulse in the Synod held at Racow, in May of the year 1580, both on account of some persons' hatred, which the dispute with David, or rather the incarceration and death of his adversary, had brought upon him, and also on account of disagreement in points of doctrine."

It is but too evident, then, that there are grounds for regarding Socinus as a persecutor. On the minor charge -that of suspending David, he is confessedly guilty. Indirectly, at least, he was influential in his imprisonment and death. The charge is not of modern origin. The friends of David preferred it—" the warmest admirers and ablest advocates of Socinus have not been able wholly to efface it." The prevalence of it drove him from Transylvania, and in Poland it kept him from communion with his brethren. It was preferred as soon as the actions which occasioned it were done; it was answered after an interval of fifteen years. The answer is, in some points evasive and jesuitical; in others, it by omission implicates the writer, and it failed to convince those to whom it was addressed. JOHN R. BEard.

MANCHESTER, July 19, 1833.

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

JULY 25, 1833.

SIR, Of the learned theologians noticed by Sandius in his Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum, the first, as you will probably recollect, is "Wolfgangus Fabricius Capito,' one of the ministers of Strasburg, honourably distinguished by the churches of Transylvania, as " vir pietate et eruditione insignis." From a short article in Nouv. Dict. Hist. (1789, ii. 387), it appears that he died of the plague in 1542, aged 63. Capito had been the friend of Bucer; also of colampadius, whose widow he married, and became his biographer. From a second marriage, he derived a help-mate in the pulpit as in the parlour—“ La seconde se piquoit de bel-esprit, et s'avisoit même de prêcher, lorsque son mari étoit malade."

Sandius, who places the death of Capito in 1541, at the age of 60, has shortly described his valuable contributions to sacred literature. There is one omission, which may be supplied from a volume now before me, printed at Strasburg, and entitled Novum Testamentum Græce. Argentorati, apud Wolfium Cephalæum. Anno 1524.

Cephalæus, in the usual manner of the earlier printers, has prefixed an address to the reader, in which he regrets the comparatively insignificant, if not irreligious, or merely secular interests to which the newly discovered celestial art had been generally applied. He then proposes the higher objects to which his press would be devoted, with the advice and assistance of his kinsman Capito.

As a first-fruit of their commendable purpose, Cephalæus proceeds to offer this NEW TESTAMENT, printed (very neatly) with a new Greek type; to be followed, if duly encouraged, by the Septuagint, which was accordingly executed in 1526, in 3 vols. 12mo. Dr. Harwood in his

Ego, vero, candide lector, alienissimus esse cupiens ab istius modi perversissimo studio, novam, quam instituo, officinam quamque exteris potissimum linguis exornare animus est, Fabriti Capitonis, consanguinei meitum industria, tum consilio opitulantibus.

"Christo, imprimis, et saluti tuæ dica, ac perpetuo dicatam esse volo, inde tibi offerens Novum Testamentum, novo græco caractere, ut ipse cernis, excusum. Proinde, ubi conatum hunc nostrum, amice Lector, non omnino displicuisse tibi sensero, veteris quoque instrumenti volumina in suos digesta Tomos, iisdem typis transcripturum nos promitto.

"Vale. Argentorati, ex ædibus nostris, 1524, decimo. Kalendas Julias."

"View of various Editions" (Ed. 2, p. 118), describes it as rare and curious;" though neither on that occasion, nor when he mentions this New Testament (p. 120) in the same terms, does he discover any knowledge of the learned editor.

In the margin of my copy, at the place of 1 John v. 7, I find written, probably by a very early possessor, hic desiderata quædam verba; for Capito has the merit of rejecting the forgery, which Erasmus had restored two years before in his third edition. The editors of the "Improved Version" say, "This text concerning the heavenly wit nesses, has been omitted as spurious, in many editions of the New Testament." They instance "the two first of Erasmus, Aldus, Colinous, Zwinglius, and lately, Griesbach." They had probably never seen this edition of Strasburg.

If my memory serve me, I found the spurious text in an elegant edition which issued a few years since from the Glasgow press, though professing generally to follow Griesbach. Should I be correct, as you will easily ascertain, your Glasgow editor may have indulged a deference to ecclesiastical rather than to historic authority, such as Le Clerc discovered in 1703 in his note on the passage. That learned biblicist has accurately stated in a condensed form, the now well known and abundant evidence, which renders the authenticity of the disputed text almost, if not altogether, impossible. He, however, from such premises, unexpectedly arrives at the following conclusion; " Neanmoins, ce passage étant reçu dans nos Bibles, on n'a pas cru devoir l'ommettre, comme Luther l'avoit fait, dans sa version."

I was the less surprised that Le Clerc had caught the mantle of Erasmus rather than of Luther, from having once observed in Locke's correspondence, that the learned remonstrant had entertained the project which his friend strangely encouraged, of becoming a beneficed clergyman of our Calvinistic State-church in its southern department; though at length deterred, not by the obligation to "subscribe slave," which deterred the generous youth of Milton, but by the difficulty to a foreigner in advanced life, of becoming an acceptable English preacher.

You have shown (p 347) from the affecting instance of Dr. M'Gill, that a beneficed clergyman in your northern division of the State-church, must alike be prepared to

"subscribe slave," especially by a seasonable recantation, should the inexorable res augustæ domi command the sacrifice. Thus, Dr. Price on "the Christian Doctrine, as held by Trinitarians and Calvinists," says (Serm. p.52)— Prior to the inquisition of Glasgow and Ayr, which you describe in p. 348—" In Scotland, if I am not mistaken, the clergy are required, not only to declare their belief of this system, but that they will constantly adhere to it; that is, never grow wiser."

I am old enough to recollect the persecution of Dr. M'Gill, and the compassionate interest which his case excited among liberal-minded Christians. This appears in the "Memoirs of Priestley" (ii. 70). Writing to Mr. Lindsey from "Birmingham, July 6, 1790," he says, probably misinformed as to the Assembly's disposition-" It is much to be regretted that Dr. M'Gill was not more firm, especially if the General Assembly would have supported him." In the same page of the " Memoirs," we find that the exacted submission had not secured the hapless presbyter from the apprehension at least of farther annoyance. Writing to Mr. Turner, "May 12, 1791," Mr. Lindsey says, "I have had a few lines from Mr. Wardrop of Glasgow, who tells me that the second storm which threatened good Dr. M'Gill, is happily blown over."

There is a Church "built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." There is also a State-church sustained by an unholy alliance with "the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them." Of such a soi-disant Christian Church, displaying her allurements of rank and riches, in whatever proportions, and whether her waitingservants appear in the scarlet mantle or in sleeves of lawn, in the presbyterian cloak or the episcopal rochet, it may be too truly said, as of "the strange woman" in the Proverbs," she hath cast down many wounded; yea, many strong men have been slain by her."

CIVIS RUSTICUS.

Charles I. and Oliver Cromwell.

The following Lines were written by the late WILLIAM ROSCOE of Liverpool, on reading an encomium of Charles I. and a condemnation of Cromwell.

HIRED slave of greatness-servile tool of state!

Thy bosom labouring with thy country's hate;