Had his opinions been altogether erroneous, while he believed them to be true, both reason and scripture would have justified Servetus in the open avowal of them, and in using all the rational means in his power to promote what he thought truth. In doing this he would have acted the part of an honest man; but, upon a close examination, it will be found he had more truth on his side than his persecutors..

SECTION III.

On the ground of antiquity.

It is not unusual to call reputed heterodox opinions novel; when, perhaps, on impartial examination, they will be found the most ancient. No doctrines ought to be thought novel that can be proved from the sacred scriptures. Servetus' views of the unity and supremacy of the one God the Father, and of the inferiority and subordination of his Son Jesus Christ, however novel they might appear to the men of his age, will, on the closest examination, be found to have been the views which the generality of christians entertained for several centuries after the christian æra. He could not be ignorant, as a man well versed in sacred and profane

things, that all the Antinicene, the Nicene, and also the Constantinopolitan fathers; that is, indeed all christians had, for near four hundred years, maintained this unmoveable fundamental of the catholic truth, I believe in one GOD the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in his only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. At that time the Latin doctors taught, that the Father was the author of the Son; and the Grecks, that he was the cause of the Son; and that all ecclesiastical prayers were addressed to one God, through Christ the mediator. Thus Ser

vetus was justified in his leading doctrines, by what had been the general belief of christians during the early ages of the church. The reader will be fully convinced of this, if he will give himself the trouble to examine, Dr. Priestley's work entitled Early opinions concerning Christ.' In which the worthy author has shown that unitarianism long prevailed, before trinitarianism was able to supplant it, and establish itself in the world.

SECTION IV.

By the example of Calvin and his associates.

Luther

The successful reformers had set the example of rejecting established customs and opinions; of resisting ecclesiastical authority, and spurning religious tyranny; of judging for themselves, and propagating their own opinions. began the work, Calvin and his associates had followed in the same course: and why might not Servetus do the same things as they had done, though his opinions differed from theirs? He only followed the example which Luther, Calvin and all the reformers had set him. What could there be criminal in this? Had he not as much right as they to judge for himself? Had he not as much right to reject the authority of Calvin and all the reformers over his conscience, as they had to reject the authority of the pope and the church of Rome over their consciences; and to reject their dogmas, as they had to reject the dogmas of the catholic church? Had he not as much authority to publish what he thought truth, in opposition to them, and to expose their errors, as they had to publish what they thought truth in opposition to the pope and

his party, and to expose the errors of the romanists? Servetus is justified by the example of Calvin and his party; their admirers must either justify him or condemn them. An apos

tle hath said, Happy is he that is not condemned in the thing that he alloweth. This happiness belongs not to bigots who allow themselves to do, and glory in doing, what they will not suffer others to do with impunity. If the example of Calvin was good, Servetus could not be to blame for following it; if his imitation of it was criminal it must be because the example was a bad one..

SECTION V.

By the effects produced by his writings and sufferings.

Many persons judge of the goodness of a cause by its success, this is a false rule of judging; but even upon this principle Servetus may be vindicated. Though he fell a sacrifice to the cause he espoused, it has since been attended with considerable success, and will no doubt ultimately triumph. His books, we are told, were circulated in Italy soon after their

publication, and received with approbation by many in that country. It has been the opinion of some learned men, and the thing is highly probable, that Lælius Socinus, the uncle of Faus tus, and several other Italians, derived their antitrinitarian opinions from Servetus' book, entitled De Trinitatis Erroribus. Lælius Socinus was but a boy when Servetus published that book, and we know of no other antitrinitarian publications, that were likely to come in his way but those of the Doctor. As Servetus was the first who wrote in defence of unitarianism, and the first martyr to the cause, after the æra of the reformation, he may with great propriety be called the reviver of the unitarian doctrine. Mr. Robinson says, From him proceeded partly, if not wholly, the unitarian baptist churches in most parts of Europe.' This will appear the more likely when it is considered how nearly the religious opinions of the Dutch general baptists, and indeed those of the general baptists every where, who lived near his time, coincided with his. He bore a faithful testimony against trinitarianism and pedobaptism, and sealed it with his blood; nor has his testimony been useless to mankind. Unitarians of every description, baptist, pedobaptist, and antibaptist, may consider him as a martyr