Socin Faust  (Ital. Sozini or Sozzini,)   was descended, in a direct line, from the eminent Lawyer, Marianus Socin ; and was related to many persons of illustrious rank, and distinguished learning. His father was Alexander Socin, also an eminent Lawyer, who was honoured with a diploma by the University of Sienna, in the year 1530, conferring on him the degree of Doctor of the Civil and Canon Law; and was soon after appointed Professor in Ordinary in the University of Padua. His mother was Agnes, daughter of Burgesius Petrucci, Chief of the Republic of Sienna, and Victoria Piccolomini, niece to Pope Pius II., a lady of singular virtue and worth, who instilled into her daughter's mind the purest and noblest sentiments. As far, therefore, as regards his descent, he could boast of being sprung from the first patrician families of Sienna ; and of being connected, through them, with the noblest houses of Italy. Faust was much attached to all the members of his own family ; but his favourite uncle was Lelio. Of his female relations, next to his grandmother, Camilla, he evinced the strongest partiality for his aunt Portia, wife of Laelius Beccius, and his sister Phyllis, wife of Cornelius Marsilius. 

He was born at Sienna, Dec. 5th, 1539. His father died April 26th, 1541, regretted by all Italy; and Faust being thus deprived in early childhood of that paternal superintendence, which is of so much importance in a boy's education, and left entirely to the charge of a fond and indulgent mother, the instruction which he received was of a more general and superficial kind, than it would probably have been, had his father's life been spared. He merely passed through the usual course of polite literature; and it was ever afterwards matter of painful recollection to him, that his education had been so scanty, and that he had not enjoyed the assistance of a tutor. He acknowledged, in a letter to a friend, that he had never studied Philosophy ; that he was a stranger to the Divinity of the Schools; and that his acquaintance with Logic was confined to the mere rudiments of that science, a knowledge of which he had gained late in life, and after most of his controversial works were written. It was a reproach to that proud age, says his biographer, to be taught, by so remarkable an example, that there may be great men, and men capable of accomplishing great things, without those aids, to which we properly attach a high value, but which we are too apt to estimate beyond their real worth. Perhaps, too, he adds, it was expedient, that a man of genius, who was born to effect a revolution in the opinions of the world, should be tainted with no prejudices, lest any fibre of those errors, which it was his mission to eradicate, should take root in his own mind.

The first part of his life, till he had attained the age of twenty-three, was employed in procuring the small stock of learning already alluded to, and in studying the Civil Law. But he had, in the mean time, through the innate strength of his own genius, and the instructions of his uncle Laelius, imbibed some principles of religious knowledge, and gained an insight into the prevailing errors of the day. The letters which Laelius had from time to time written to his relations in Italy, and which were the means of infusing into their minds many of his own favourite opinions, had also made an impression upon his nephew, Faust, in the strength of whose mental powers he had great confidence ; and to whom he looked forward, as the medium, through which his own views would be ultimately laid open to the world. It nevertheless appears, that Lelio, in some degree, maintained the same kind of reserve towards Faust, as he did towards his Protestant friends in Switzerland and Germany ; and that the questions, on which he declined to satisfy the curiosity of his nephew, were more numerous than those, on which he gave him the benefit of his instructions. The cause of this apparent reserve probably was a fear, lest his correspondence with his nephew, and other friends in Italy, should be intercepted ; and his plans for the extension of his views among his countrymen prematurely disclosed, and rendered abortive. Nor, as the event shewed, was such a feeling altogether groundless ; for by some means, not clearly indicated, and probably never distinctly ascertained, the whole family of the Socin became involved in a suspicion of heresy.

After the death of Alexander Socin, Lelio had three brothers still living. Celsus was settled at Bologna ; but Cornelius and Camillus resided at Sienna, with their nephew, Faust. Lelio had made converts of these, together with some of their wives ; nor were there wanting others among his friends in Italy, who were either parties to his plans of religious reformation, or privy to them. But suspicion having been excited, Cornelius was apprehended, and thrown into prison ; and the rest were either intimidated, or put to flight. The same cause drove Faust, then a very young man, from his native country, and led him to seek refuge in France.

In the year 1562, while he was residing at Lyons, he heard of the unexpected death of his uncle Lelio at Zurich, and immediately repaired thither, to take possession of his uncle's manuscripts;—an object, in the attainment of which he was materially assisted by Marius Besozzus. After an absence of about three years, which he spent chiefly in Switzerland, he returned to Italy; and having formed an acquaintance with the Grand Duke of Tuscany, he lived twelve years in his Court, discharged the most honourable duties there, and was eminently distinguished by the favour of that Prince, and the dignities conferred upon him. At the end of this term, he entered into a serious consideration of the value of the different objects that solicit the attention of men; and into sober reflections on the true end, and highest happiness of human life. The result of these reflections was a firm conviction, that the greatest earthly prospects dwindle into insignificance, in comparison with the hope of heavenly glory and felicity. He voluntarily left his country, his friends, his hopes, and his wealth, that he might be the more disengaged, to seek his own salvation, and that of others. Nor were his services lightly estimated by the Grand Duke ; for his departure excited the profound regret of that Prince, and repeated, but unavailing attempts were made, at the instance of Paolo Giordano Orsini, a Nobleman who had married the Grand Duke's sister, to prevail upon him to return.

It was in the year of our Lord 1574, and the thirty-fifth of his own age, that he left Italy. He was hospitably received at Basle, where he remained upwards of three years, for the purpose of adding to his stock of theological knowledge, being chiefly intent upon gaining a thorough acquaintance with the sacred writings, to the study of which he devoted himself in an earnest and serious spirit; and he was greatly assisted in his inquiries by a few papers, and a number of scattered notes, which his uncle had left behind him. Of the use to which he applied these he made no secret, although he might have taken to himself the whole credit of them, had he been so disposed.

He remained at Basle till the year 1577, when he began to throw off all reserve and disguise, as to his religious opinions; for, regarding them as the truths of God, he thought it a crime to conceal them in his own breast. Acting on this principle, and desirous of diffusing around him the light, which had been, in his apprehension, poured in upon his own mind, he insensibly proceeded, from holding free conversations with his friends on religious subjects, to debates with others. He entered into a dispute concerning the Office of Jesus Christ, as our Saviour;—first a verbal, and afterwards a written one. Before this was finished, a regard to his health obliged him to desist from his studies, and seek repose in the neighbouring city of Zurich ; and being debarred from the use of his papers, which he had left behind him at Basle, he held another dispute with Francis Pucci, at Zurich, in the beginning of the year 1578. In the same year he returned to Basle, and put the last hand to his book "De Servatore."

About the same time, the opinion of Francis David and some others, relative to the honour and power of Christ, produced great disturbances and commotions in the Antitrinitarian Churches in Transylvania. With a view to provide a remedy for this evil, Blandrata, who had great influence with the members of those Churches, and with the Bathorean Princes, who then possessed the supreme authority in the state, invited Faust from Basle in the same year, that he might draw off Francis David, the head of the party, from his peculiar sentiments. The more conveniently to effect this object, Blandrata, at his own expense, paid for the board of Faust in the house of David, that they might enjoy the advantage of the same place of residence, and the same table, which they did for between four and five months. But the attempt was followed by no good result ; for David, neither satisfied, nor induced, by the arguments of Socin, to abandon the position which he had taken, not only retained his opinions, and privately propagated them, but publicly advanced them from the pulpit ; for which he was thrown into prison, by order of the Prince of Transylvania, where, after a short time, he died in a state of delirium.

The part, which Faust took in this affair, has been considered, by many, the greatest blot upon his character. The charges usually brought against him, in reference to the persecution of Francis David, resolve themselves into the three following. First, that he was the instigator of the proceedings: Secondly, that, by an abuse of confidence and hospitality, he furnished the materials, on which the prosecution was founded: and Thirdly, that he assisted personally in the arrangement and direction of it. To these charges Dr. T. Rees has furnished as many distinct replies, in a valuable contribution to the "Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature," of which replies the following extracts contain the substance.

1. "No attempt has ever been made, as far as now appears, to substantiate the first charge by evidence.—This charge is, moreover, sufficiently invalidated by the statement, which the enemies of Socin have themselves given, of the origin of the rupture between Blandrata and David, and of the unrelenting hostility with which the former acted towards the latter in all the subsequent transactions. The following testimony may be taken from the pen of Blandrata himself. After Socin had reported to him the unsuccessful termination of his disputations with Davidis, Blandrata writes to him :—' Tell Francis that thus far I have not declared myself his enemy to the Prince, but henceforth he may regard me as such.' (Bod, Historia Unitariorum in Transylvania. Lugd. 1781, p. 110.) A few days subsequently were issued to the Senate of Coloswar, the orders of the Prince for the deposition and arrest of the Superintendant." This reply to the first charge is perfectly conclusive.

2. "Agreeably to the original arrangement, made with the concurrence of Davidis himself, Socin transmitted to Blandrata, from time to time, the written arguments which were drawn up in the course of the disputations: and had these documents been employed as the ground-work of the charges to be exhibited against David before the Synod, no blame could have attached to Socin for making the communications. But Blandrata did not at all avail himself of these papers." This statement appears to require some qualification. It is quite true, that no blame attaches to Socin for making the communications, because this was done in conformity with the original arrangement, made with David's own concurrence ; but it is also true, that, in the letter, by which Blandrata convoked the members of the Synod, and which was dated Clausenburg, April 7th, 1579, rather more than a fortnight before the Synod was to meet, he expressly calls attention to the " Theses," which were to form the grounds of accusation against Francis David. The name of Socin, however, nowhere appears in this document. Blandrata takes upon himself the whole responsibility; and though the "Antitheses" are known to have been " written by Faust Socin," (Socini Opera, T. II. p. 801,) they are exhibited, in the forementioned document, as the " Antitheses of George Blandrata." (Lampe, Hist. Eccles. Reformat, in Hungaria et Transylvania, p. 306.) The remarks which follow are a sufficient reply to the remainder of the second charge. "The main charge actually preferred against David at his trial was, that on the first Sunday after the termination of his conferences with Socin, he had publicly declared, in preaching to the people, 'that Christ ought not to be invoked in prayer; and that those who prayed to him, sinned as much as if they prayed to the Virgin Mary, or Peter, or Paul, or any other dead saints.' It is not pretended that this accusation was made by Socin ; nor is there any evidence of his being among the auditors of David, when the words are alleged to have been uttered. The officer of the Court, when he read the charge, expressly stated, that the information had been communicated to the Prince, by the brethren, the disciples and associates of David, who were then present among his accusers, that is to say, by other Ministers of Coloswar, who had on this occasion joined themselves to Blandrata. There is, therefore, no evidence to criminate Socin."

3. "Socin admits that it was one time his intention to have been present at the Synod convened for the settlement of this controversy, having received the commands of the Prince to attend. He also states that he had, in consequence of this, drawn up his answers to David's arguments, with the view of having them ready to produce, in case the assembly should wish to be made acquainted with them. It is, however, to be observed, that Socin seems to have thought that the business of the Synod would be to discuss, as theologians, the controversy which had been agitated between David and himself, and not, as afterwards proved to be its design, to sit in judgment on the worthy Superintendant, for the promulgation of alleged blasphemies against God and Christ. It ought not, therefore, to be suspected that he prepared this document with the view of involving his opponent in any heavier calamity than a removal from his ministerial charge, in order to disable him from the farther dissemination of his opinions.— Socin concludes his reply to the accusation and calumnies that had been published against him, with the following solemn asseveration, which there is no adequate reason to disbelieve:—'I neither consented to any more severe measure against Francis, nor knew of any other design of Blandrata and the brethren in this transaction, nor ever said that I knew of any, than that Blandrata himself would take care that the Prince should command Francis to be suspended from his ministerial office, until a general Synod should, as had been agreed upon, put an end to this controversy concerning the invocation of Christ. To this I call God to witness.'" (Socini Opera, Tom. II. p. 712.)

When the conference with David was ended, and the result laid before the Transylvanian Churches, Faust did not protract his stay, but immediately repaired to Poland, in the hope of escaping a disease, which was then prevalent in Transylvania. He was at this time in his fortieth year; and as he had resolved that Poland should in future be his adopted country, he felt desirous of being admitted as a member of those Churches, which acknowledged the Father only to be the Supreme God. Not agreeing with them, however, upon some minor points, he met with a refusal ; but bore the disappointment with equanimity, and repelled, with vigour and success, the attacks made upon him by his opponents. By his frequent disputations and writings, in defence of what he deemed the cause of God and of Truth, he exasperated many, some of whom accused him to the King, and said that it would be a reflection upon his government to suffer the author of these writings, whom they invidiously styled an Italian vagrant and exile, to go unpunished. Upon this Faust left Cracow, where he had resided about four years, and retired to the seat of Christopher Morstinius, a Polish Nobleman, and Lord of Paulikovice, where his innocence was protected, not by secrecy, but by the privilege of the Nobility of Poland ; for at that time the Polish Nobles possessed almost an independent jurisdiction, and exercised nearly an absolute authority in their own districts. This country-seat was only a few miles from Cracow; a situation which promised to afford him much greater facilities for his own vindication, than a prison, to which he might have been consigned, had he remained much longer in that city.

This benevolent Nobleman not only opened his hospitable doors, for the entertainment of Faust, in that season of danger, but supported him for more than three years. He loaded this exile and foreigner, indeed, with still greater and more substantial tokens of kindness and respect, giving him his daughter in marriage, by which he became connected with the first families in Poland. The issue of this alliance was an only daughter, named Agnes, who was bom about Whitsuntide, 1587. His marriage into so respectable a family contributed greatly to spread his opinions among the higher classes ; and prepared the way for that powerful influence, which, after having been for some years repulsed by the Antitrinitarian Churches, he finally gained over them. But in the midst of his success, as a religious reformer, he was destined to encounter domestic trials of no ordinary kind.

About three or four months after the birth of his daughter, he lost his wife ; and this calamity was followed by a dangerous attack of illness, which was of so unyielding a nature, as to interrupt his studies for a considerable time. Nor was this all ; for, by the death of Francis, Grand Duke of Tuscany, he was deprived of the revenues arising out of his estates in Italy, which had before been regularly transmitted to him, as they became due. At one time, indeed, his Italian property had been in some danger, and intrigues, to which even the Pope was a consenting party, had been set on foot to deprive him of it ; but by the mediation of Isabella Medici, sister of the Grand Duke, during her life, and afterwards by the kindness of her brother, as long as he survived, Faust had his rents annually remitted. On the death of these Princes, everything conspired to distress him. Yet he bore his sufferings with meekness and patience ; and having returned to Cracow, sought some consolation, under his personal and domestic afflictions, and amidst the licentiousness and turbulence of the times, in striving to purge away the errors, which then prevailed throughout the Christian world ; an employment, to which many beside himself thought that he had been called, by the special Providence of God.

He had all along frequented the ecclesiastical assemblies, and for some time taken a leading part in them. At the Synod of Wengrow, in 1584, he maintained the doctrine of the worship of Jesus Christ; and contended, that its rejection would lead to Judaism, and even to Atheism. At the same Synod, and at that of Chmielnik, held in the same year, he powerfully contributed to the rejection of the Millennarian opinions, taught by many of the Antitrinitarians. It was at the desire of this last-named Synod, that he wrote his reply to the attacks of the Jesuits of Posnania. His influence was completely established at the Synod of Brest, in Lithuania, in 1588, where he removed all the differences that divided the Antitrinitarians of Poland, and gave unity to their Churches, by moulding their previously undefined and discordant opinions into one complete and harmonious religious system. At this Synod, he disputed with unusual vigour and success, concerning the Death and Sacrifice of Christ, Justification, and the Corruption of Human Nature ; and opposed the adherents of Francis David and Simon Budnaeus, on the subject of the Invocation of Jesus Christ.

It was during the same year, that the care of the Church at Luclavice was entrusted to Peter Statorius the younger, (vide Art. 128,) son of Peter Statorius of Thionville, whose family had formerly been naturalized, and obtained the privileges of Nobility in the kingdom of Poland. Being no less distinguished by the quickness of his judgment, than by his eloquence, this celebrated man, when once admitted to the friendship of Faust, entered fully into his views, and became the willing advocate of his opinions. Some time before this also, Faust had drawn over not a few of the leading men among the Unitarians to his own sentiments ; and the number of his adherents daily increased. Still, however, some persons of great influence stood aloof, as Niemojevius, Czechovicius, and the majority of the older Ministers. John Securinus is said to have been the first, who dared openly to defend the opinions of Socin. Others shortly followed ; among whom, the three brothers, Andrew, Stanislaus and Christopher Lubieniecius, contributed greatly to strengthen the Socinian party. (Vide Art. 121—123.) These were men of illustrious descent, and splendid promise ; and having been brought up as courtiers, and accustomed to the society of Kings, Princes, and the higher class of Nobles, afforded the best evidence of true greatness of character, by exchanging the allurements of a Court for the study and practice of religion. Others who bore the office of Pastors, and particularly the younger ones, whose prejudices were fewer and less inveterate than those of the senior Ministers, continued to swell the number of Faust's admirers ; and what rendered these accessions the more valuable was, that, amidst the great variety of opinions which prevailed, all seemed desirous of contending for the truth, rather than the victory. Their discussions were conducted with earnestness, but their zeal was tempered with candour and discretion ; and it was in this beautiful and truth-seeking spirit, that the business of their Synods was transacted. Two remarkable examples of this have been recorded, in the accounts of John Niemojevius and Nicholas Zytnius.

Nor were the Polish Unitarians less distinguished by their candour and good temper, when disputing among themselves, than when encountering the arguments of their opponents. No one, who has once read, can ever forget, the remarkable encomium of Archbishop Tillotson, upon the followers of Socin, as a religious body, in the second of his Sermons "Concerning the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour." After pointing out a solitary exception to this rule, in the case of Schlichtingius, of whom he nevertheless says, "that it is not usual with him to fall into such rash and rude expressions," he thus continues. "To do right to the writers on that side, I must own, that generally they are a pattern of the fair way of disputing, and of debating matters of religion without heat and unseemly reflections upon their adversaries, in the number of whom I did not expect that the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church would have been reckoned by them. They generally argue matters with that temper and gravity, and with that freedom from passion and transport which becomes a serious and weighty argument: and for the most part they reason closely and clearly, with extraordinary guard and caution, with great dexterity and decency, and yet with smartness and subtilty enough; with a very gentle heat, and few hard words ; virtues to be praised wherever they are found, yea even in an enemy, and very worthy of our imitation. In a word, they are the strongest managers of a weak cause, and which is ill-founded at the bottom, that perhaps ever meddled with controversy: insomuch that some of the Protestants, and the generality of the Popish writers, and even the Jesuits themselves, who pretend to all the reason and subtilty in the world, are in comparison of them but mere scolds and bunglers. Upon the whole matter, they have but this one great defect, that they want a good cause, and truth on their side ; which if they had, they have reason, and wit, and temper enough to defend it."

The petitio principii towards the close of this passage, as to the want of a good cause, may well be excused in a writer, who, notwithstanding the liberal tendencies of his own mind, well knew the value of a reputation for orthodoxy. Nor does this assumption, however honestly made, derogate, in any degree, from the strength of the encomium itself; but tends rather to enhance, and confirm it. No one can deny, (for it is indisputable,) that the able men, whom Faust Socin gathered around him, and enlisted under his banners, were remarkably distinguished for the qualities attributed to them by the worthy Archbishop.

But the individual, to whose eloquence Faust was most indebted, for the ascendancy which he acquired over the Antitrinitarian Churches of Poland, was Peter Statorius the younger. That accomplished orator set forth, in an engaging and popular form, those parts of the Socinian system, which had before been considered beyond the reach of ordinary understandings. Him, therefore, Faust employed as the chief interpreter of his mind ; and the advantages resulting from his cooperation soon became conspicuous, in the flourishing state of the Polish Unitarian Church.

Faust, however, besides being exposed to various petty annoyances from his Protestant adversaries, had become particularly obnoxious to the Catholic inhabitants of Cracow. While he resided there, the calamities, which generally attend those who faithfully adhere to the dictates of conscience, threatened him from every quarter ; but especially was the enmity of many revived and heightened, after he published his book "De Servatore." In the year 1598, when he was ill, and confined to his chamber for the recovery of his health, the rabble, instigated by the students of the University, dragged him from his bed half naked, and with great indignities forced him through the streets and market-place, with the intention of murdering him. But he was at length rescued from their fury by the interposition of two of the Professors, assisted by the Rector of the University, who succeeded in saving their most formidable polemical antagonist, by deceiving the infuriated multitude, and exposing themselves to no small personal danger. On this occasion, Faust was plundered of his library, with all its furniture, which was destroyed by the mob ; but he regarded the loss of his goods as nothing, in comparison with that of his manuscripts, of which he particularly regretted a treatise, composed against the Atheists. He was often heard to declare, in reference to this event, that he would gladly recover his papers at the expense of his life.

When threats were added to the barbarous treatment which he received from the populace, he retired a second time from Cracow, and found an asylum at Luclavice, a village which lay about nine Polish miles from that city, and which was afterwards rendered famous by his abode and death. There he became an inmate in the house of Abraham Blonski, the proprietor of the place, with whom he continued to reside, during the rest of his life. There, too, an Antitrinitarian Church had existed for some time, of which his friend, Peter Statorius, was the Minister. Living, therefore, as neighbours, assembling as fellowworshipers, and affording each other mutual aid in the great work in which they were engaged, they succeeded, by their combined efforts, in extending and consolidating the foundations of the infant Church. Even Niemojevius at length gave in his adhesion to Socin in most things ; and with a degree of ingenuousness, in complete keeping with the rest of his character, acknowledged and retracted the errors, into which he had been inadvertently led. Czechovicius remained the only dissentient. But he too, finding himself deserted and alone, connived at changes, which it was beyond his power to prevent. He made an effort, indeed, to revive the controversy about Baptism ; but, by the advice of Faust, the subject was allowed to rest, and in the course of time died a natural death.

Czechovicius differed from Faust, rather on the perpetuity of Baptism, than on the mode of its administration. He contended that Baptism by immersion was necessary, in the case of all adult believers;—as well of those who were born of Christian parents, as of those who were converted from a faith altogether different from the Christian. (Vide Art. 61.) Socin, too, regarded the practice of Infant Baptism as a great and hurtful error, particularly on account of the stress laid upon it by the Catholics, and the followers of Calvin. (Opera, T. I. p. 702.) But he thought, at the same time, that Baptism ought not to be regarded as a perpetual ordinance of the Church ; and that it was not prescribed for those, who, in any way, had given their names to Christ, or from their earliest years had been educated and instructed in the Christian discipline. He was also of opinion, that, if Baptism is to be retained at all in modern times, it is to be retained principally on account of those, who are converted from other religions to the Christian. "I do not see," says he, "why such may not be baptized by those, who have preached Christ to them: or, if they have no spiritual father in Christ among men, why he may not perform this service, who has been fixed upon for the office by the congregation to which they are willing to join themselves ; since the Baptism of water, administered in the name of Jesus Christ, is only the shadowing forth of the forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ, in open profession of his name, and a kind of initiation into his religion. Nothing is really communicated by it ; but it is a recognition of what has been granted, and will most certainly be bestowed." (Opera, T. I. pp. 350, 351.) Entertaining these views, Socin did all in his power to allay the animosities, which had arisen out of the controversy on the subject of Baptism ; and it would appear, that, as long as he lived, "Baptism was not considered by the Polish Churches as a Christian institution of perpetual obligation." (Rees's Racovian Catechism, p. 249, Note d.)

Having thus succeeded in removing the principal causes of contention, and bringing all into a state of harmony, as if his life had been protracted only to accomplish this purpose, on the 3rd of March, 1604, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, he was taken away at Luclavice, by a death, not so immature to himself, as mournful to his friends. His last words were, "That not less satiated with life, than with the enmity and calamities which he had felt, he was expecting, with joyful and undaunted hope, that last moment, which would bring with it a release from his trials, and the recompence of his labours."

Peter Statorius, his beloved companion and associate, delivered the funeral address over his remains ; and, in the course of the next year, having accomplished his own allotted task on earth, followed him to the grave, at the early age of forty.

The epitaph, said to have been inscribed on the tomb of Faust Socin, shews what his friends thought of the extent and value of his labours. In two lines, by alluding to Popery under the similitude of a building, the author pays him the highest possible compliment. Tota ruet Babylon: destruxit tecta Lutherus,
Muros Calvinus, sed fundamenta Socin.

"It must be granted," says Robinson, "there is a strict adherence to truth in this epitaph, though the glory is not due to Socin first, nor to him alone." (Eccles. Res. p. 620.) To him, however, is preeminently due the glory of having effected that, which none of his predecessors in the same path had been able to accomplish. "Under the auspicious protection of such a spirited and insinuating chief," says Mosheim, "the little flock, that had hitherto been destitute of strength, resolution and courage, grew apace, and, all of a sudden, arose to a high degree of credit and influence. Its number was augmented by proselytes of all ranks and orders. Of these some were distinguished by their nobility, others by their opulence, others by their address, and many by their learning and eloquence. All these contributed, in one way or another, to increase the lustre, and to advance the interests of this rising community; and to support it against the multitude of adversaries, which its remarkable prosperity and success had raised up against it from all quarters : the rich maintained it by their liberality, the powerful by their patronage and protection, and the learned by their writings." Before the time of Faust Socin, the Antitrinitarians of Poland had been distinguished by the names of Pinczovians and Racovians, from Pinczow, where they had their earliest settlement, and Racow, which for several years formed their metropolis; and different sections among them had been called Farnovians and Budnceans, from Stanislaus Farnovius, and Simon Budnaeus, their respective leaders. (Vide Art. 62 and 76.) But these, and all other distinctive epithets, applied to them by the orthodox, such as Arians, Ebionites, Photinians and Servetians, were ultimately absorbed, in the general denomination of Socinians, as including, and comprehending all the rest; and although the Socinians, as a body, have long since become extinct, the name still survives, and is a favourite epithet, in the mouths of bigots and persecutors of every creed, for the advocates of a liberal and enlightened theology. Does any one throw off the yoke of priestly authority, and assert the liberty with which Christ has made him free ? He is a Socinian. Does he venture to express a modest and trembling doubt, concerning the fallacy of the creed, which assumes to itself the name of orthodox? He is tainted with the pernicious opinions of that arch-heretic Socin. Does he cling to his Bible, as the only rule of faith and practice ? He is a true disciple of the Socinian school. Perhaps the best reply, which any one can give, who falls under this ban, is that which was given by William Penn, when, in consequence of the liberal opinions advanced by him in his "Sandy Foundation shaken," he was charged with being a Socinian. "I must confess," says he, in the defence of himself, which he published, under the title of " Innocency with her open Face,"—"I have heard of one Socin, of (that they call) a noble family in Siene in Italy, who about the year 1574, being a young man, voluntarily did abandon the glories, pleasures and honours of the Great Duke of Tuscany's Court at Florence, (that noted place for all worldly delicacies,) and became a perpetual exile for his conscience ; whose parts, wisdom, gravity, and just behaviour made him the most famous with the Polonian and Transylvanian Churches ; but I was never baptized into his name, and therefore deny that reproachful epithet; and if in anything I acknowledge the verity of his doctrine, it is for the truth's sake, of which, in many things, he had a clearer prospect than most of his contemporaries."

Beneath the portrait of Faust Socin, prefixed to his Works in the "Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum," are the following panegyrical lines.

Adspice, spectator, quae gesserit ora Socin.

Illa tibi vere parva tabella dabit.
Ingenii dotes, quas non solertia possit

Pandere pingendo, grande volumen habet.
E tenebris dudum latitantia sphalmata traxit.

Tracta repellebat lumine cuncta Dei.

For an outline of the Religious System of the Polish Socinians, the reader is referred to the account of Valentine Smalcius ; and for a description of their Ecclesiastical Organization, to that of Peter Morscovius.

The writings of Faust Socin were published collectively in the "Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum," Fol., of which they form the first two volumes, bearing date, "Irenopoli, post Annum Domini 1656." Some of them had been previously published. Others then saw the light for the first time. The first Volume contains his Exegetical and Didactic, and the second his Polemical writings. They are arranged in the following order.

Vol. I.—1. An Exposition of the Fifth, and Part of the Sixth Chapter of Matthew's Gospel (Fol. 1—74). This was a posthumous, and an unfinished work ; and was first published at Racow, in 1618, 8vo. It was intended to include the whole of the Sermon on the Mount; but does not in fact extend beyond Matt. vi. 21.

2. An Exposition of John's Gospel, (Fol. 75—86,) composed about the year 1562, and ascribed by Zanchius, Beza, and some Polish writers, through mistake, to Lelio Socin. Some time after its publication, it was translated into the Polish language. An edition of it was published in 8vo. at Racow, in 1618; and a Dutch version of it appeared in 1664.

3. A Disputation with John Niemojevius concerning the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (Fol. 87— 114): first printed at Cracow in 1584, 8vo., under the feigned name of Prosper Dysidceus, and again, with the author's own name, at Racow, 1612, 8vo. The question on which the Disputation turns is, Whether the Apostle speaks in his own person, as one renewed by the Spirit of Christ, or not ? An Abridgment of this work was published in 1591, 4to., under the title, "De Peccato et Peccatorum Remissione: item Scopus septimi Capitis ad Romanos."

4. A Defence of the preceding Disputation against the Strictures of N. N., a so-called Evangelical Minister (Fol. 116—138): first published at Racow in 1595, and again in 1618, 8vo. A Dutch version of it appeared in 1664, 8vo., to which was added, A Compendium of the Christian Religion.

5. An Explanation of various Passages of Scripture (Fol. 139—154): first published, with an Address to the Reader by Jerome Moscorovius, in 1614, 8vo.; and reprinted in 1618, with the Exposition of the Proem of John's Gospel.

6. A Commentary on the First Epistle of John (Fol. 155—264): first published, by Valentine Smalcius, at Racow, in 1614, 8vo., with a Dedication to the Senators of Strasburg. It was written down, from the author's dictation, about a year before his death, for the use of a German Nobleman, who had come from Paris to Poland in search of Christian truth, and for the benefit of other theological inquirers. The author regards Ch. v. 7, as spurious; and therefore thinks it unnecessary to enter into any explanation of it.

7. On the Authority of the Holy Scripture (Fol. 265— 280); to which is added a Summary of the Christian Religion (Fol. 281): likewise, an Explanation of the principal, or at least the most common Argument in Favour of the Trinity, (Fol. 281—284,) and Theses intended to shew, that Christ is not possessed of true Divinity, unless he be the Creator of Heaven and Earth ; together with Answers (Fol. 285). The treatise " On the Authority of Scripture," which has been reckoned, by the orthodox, one of the author's best productions, was originally written in Italian, about the year 1570, for the use of a person of rank. Faust afterwards translated it into Latin ; and in 1588, a 12mo. edition of it was published at Seville, by Lazarus Ferrerius, in which the authorship was ascribed to R. P. Dominic. Lopez, of the Society of Jesus, who claimed the work as his own, but betrayed himself, by praising certain opinions in the Preface, which were at variance with those contained in the body of the book. A French version of it, by Nicholas Bernaud, a gentleman of Dauphiny, was published at Basle, in 1592, to which were prefixed some remarks by the Divines of that city ; and the Latin was reprinted at Racow, in 1611,8vo. In the same year Conrad Vorstius published an edition of it at Steinfurt, with a Preface. This is reckoned the best edition. A Dutch translation of it, with Notes, was published, in 1622, by Theodore Raphaels Camphuysius ; of which reprints appeared at Racow, in 1623 and 1664, 4to. The latter contained Vorstius's Preface. Dr. Smallbrooke, Bishop of St. David's, says, that Grotius, in the composition of his book, "De Veritate Christianae Religionis," was indebted, in an especial manner, to the valuable performance of a writer, otherwise justly of ill fame, meaning Faust Socin, with a reference to whose work, "De Authoritate S. Scripturae," this ungracious acknowledgment is made. An English translation from the Steinfurt edition was published by the Rev. E. Coombe, a Clergyman of the Church of England, in the year 1731, under the title of "An Argument for the Authority of the Holy Scripture, from the Latin of Socin."

9. Various Tracts concerning the Church (Fol. 323— 358): first published at Racow, in 1611, 8vo. These tracts are on the following subjects. First, That the Catholics cannot defend their Doctrines and Rites by the Authority of the Church ; and that it is unnecessary to discuss, What constitutes the Church, or among whom it exists ? (Fol. 323—325). Secondly, A brief Demonstration of the Unreasonableness of Disputes about the Ministry among so called Evangelical Ministers (Fol. 325, 326). Thirdly, Scruples proposed by an excellent Man concerning the Church. Fourthly, F. S.'s Reply to these Scruples (Fol. 326—333). Fifthly, An Explanation of the Words of Christ, "Thou art Peter, and on this Rock," &c, Matt, xvi. 18 (Fol. 334—341). Sixthly, Extracts from the "Writings of F. S. concerning the Church (Fol. 341—343). Seventhly, Against those who do not diligently inquire for themselves into Subjects relating to their eternal Salvation (Fol. 343, 344). Eighthly, Observations concerning the Church, and the Invocation of Christ, taken from the Letters of F. S. (Fol. 345—358). Of these eight tracts a Dutch version was printed in 1639, 4to.

10. Letters of F. S. to his Friends, in which many Questions relating to Divine Things are discussed, and many Passages of Scripture are explained ; to which are added a few Letters of others addressed to F. S., with his Replies (Fol. 359—534): first published at Racow in 1618, 8vo., and reprinted, with Additions, in the Bibl. Fratr. Polon.

11. Theological Lectures (Fol. 535—600): first published at Racow in 1609, 4to. These Lectures were posthumous, and were edited by Valentine Smalcius, who inscribed them " To the University of Heidelberg." A second edition was published in 1625, and a third in 1627, 4to. They were twice translated into Dutch, and the second time with extensive corrections and additions. The subjects discussed are various; and the number of Chapters is 29.

12. Tracts on Justification (Fol. 601—628). The number of these tracts is six, and their designations are as follow. First, Two Synopses, one on Justification by Christ, and the other on Justification before God (Fol. 601 —603). Secondly, Theses concerning Justification (Fol. 603, 604). Thirdly, A Dialogue of N. N. on Justification, with the Notes of F. S. (Fol. 604—618). Fourthly, Fragments on Justification (Fol. 619—622). Fifthly, On Faith and Works as they relate to our Justification, from a Letter in Italian addressed to N. N. (Fol. 622—626). Sixthly, Theses on the Cause and Foundation, in Man himself, of that Faith in God, by which the Scriptures declare that he is justified (Fol. 626, 627). The first Synopsis was published in 1591,4to., under the fictitious name of Gratianus Turpio Gerapolensis ; and again, with the other tracts, at Racow, in 1611, 8vo., and-1616, 4to.

13. Sophistical Arguments explained by F. S. for the Benefit of his Friends, and illustrated by Theological Examples (Fol. 629—660). The friend, for whose more particular benefit the explanation of these Arguments was intended, was Christopher Ostorod. The work, which was posthumous, F. S. dictated, but did not write: nor was it finished, or revised by him. It was first published at Racow, in 1625, 8vo.

14. Brief Instructions in the Christian Religion by way of Question and Answer, in the Catechetical Form ; to which is added a Fragment of a former Catechism of F. S., which perished in the Destruction of his Property at Cracow (Fol. 651—690). The first of these was published at Racow in 1618, 8vo. It appears to have been begun in 1593; then laid aside; then resumed in 1603, after an interval of ten years, and revised, with the assistance of Peter Statorius ; but after all, left unfinished, in consequence of the death of its author. The second piece was first published in the Bibl. Fratr. Polon.

15. The Duty of those in the Kingdom of Poland, and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who are called Evangelicals, and are studious of true Piety, to join the Churches of those in the same Countries, who are falsely and unjustly called Arians and Ebionites (Fol. 691—708). This was written in the year 1599, at the request of a person of distinction, who professed a great regard for its author. It was first published in Polish, in 1600, with an Appendix, concerning the defect of Discipline in the Evangelical Church, and the consequences of that defect, as shewn in the daily decrease in the number of its members. After the author's death, it was printed in Dutch and Latin, in 1610, 8vo. ; and extensively circulated in Holland by Ostorod and Voidovius. The Latin was reprinted at Racow, in 1611, 8vo. The first Dutch-edition being suppressed, it was again translated from Latin into Dutch, and printed in the Netherlands, in 1630, 4to. The Polish version of 1600 was made by Peter Statorius, Jun.

16. A Disputation on Water Baptism; to which are added Replies to the Notes of Dudithius and Czechovicius (Fol. 709—752). This was written at Cracow in 1580, and printed at Racow in 1613, 8vo. A Dutch translation of it appeared in 1632, both in 8vo. and 4to. The object of it is to shew, that Baptism is not a rite of perpetual obligation; and that it is not binding upon those who are born of Christian parents, or who have already made an open profession of the Christian faith.

17. A brief Treatise on the Lord's Supper, with a Defence of the same against a Writing of John Niemojevius, and some other small Pieces principally relating to the same Subject: to which are added Fragments of two Works of F. S., in the former of which he undertakes to refute the Opinion of those, who afiirm that Jesus Christ is the Most High God, or that he existed before his Birth of the Virgin Mary ; and in the latter, to reply to the Reasons of those, who attempt to prove that there are three Persons in the one Essence of God (Fol. 753—810). The Treatise on the Lord's Supper was first printed at Racow in 1618, 8vo. The two Fragments appear to have been published for the first time in the Bibl. Fratr. Polon.

Among the smaller pieces alluded to are, Themes concerning the Office of Christ; A short Discourse concerning the Method of our Salvation ; On the Duty of a Christian Man ; On Free-will and Predestination ; On the Agreement and Difference of the Old and New Testament; and Strictures on the Theses of Claudius Alberius Triuncurianus concerning the Trinity. To these are added, Some Animadversions of N. N. [or Florian Crusius] upon certain Passages in the Writings of Faust Socin, in which Faust seems to have refuted the Arguments of his Opponents in an unsatisfactory Manner, or to have given erroneous Interpretations of Passages of Scripture; with an Explanation of Is. liii.

18. A Treatise on God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Fol. 811—814): first published at Racow in 1611, 8vo. To this are added some Theses, to shew that Christ is not possessed of true Divinity, unless he be the Creator of Heaven and Earth (Fol. 814). These Theses have been already noticed under No. 7.

Vol. II.—1. A Reply for the Racovians to the Book of Palaeologus, entitled, "A Defence of the true Opinion concerning the Civil Magistrate " (Fol. 1—120). According to Przipcovius, the design of this work was not so much to refute the opinion, as to weaken the authority of Palaeologus  ; its composition does the author as little credit, perhaps, as that of any of his writings. It was published anonymously in 1581, 4to., at Cracow; and afterwards, with the author's name, at Racow in 1627, 8vo.

2. A Disputation concerning Jesus Christ the Saviour, that is, Why and in what Way Jesus Christ is our Saviour, in Reply to James Covet, an Evangelical Minister; shewing that many Things, which, among the Evangelicals, and partly also among others, are deemed Saving Truths of the Christian Religion, are Pernicious Errors, and exhibiting a clear and copious Explanation of the whole Method of our Salvation by Christ (Fol. 121—246). This Disputation was first published by Elias Arcissevius in 1594, 4to.; but was written almost twenty years before that time. It was reprinted at Franeker, in 1611, with a Reply by Sibrand Lubert ; and a Dutch translation of it was published at the same place, in 1654, 4to. Lubert inserted in his Reply the whole of the treatise "De Servatore," more to the detriment than the advantage of his own cause, in the opinion of Fabricius, Bayle and others. What follows (Fol. 247—252) is a mere duplicate of Vol. I. Fol. 601, 602. 622—626.

3. A Disputation concerning the State of the First Man before the Fall, held in writing by Faust Socin with Francis Pucci in the year 1578, and containing a Reply to Francis Pucci's own Arguments concerning the Immortality of Man, and of All Things before the Fall (Fol. 253—370). This Disputation, which was first published at Racow in 1610, 4to., contains ten arguments of F. Pucci to prove that man was originally created immortal, written at Basle, June 4th, 1577 ; a reply to these arguments by Socin ; Pucci's defence of his arguments, dated July, 1577 ; a full refutation of this defence, written at Zurich, January, 1578 ; and a Dedication of the whole to Prince Maurice, Landgrave of Hesse, by the editor, Jerome Moscorovius.

4. A Disputation on the Nature or Essence of Christ, the Son of God, and also on the Expiation of Sin by him, against Andrew Volanus (Fol. 371—422). The origin of this Disputation was as follows. The Churches of Poland having received a hortatory letter from Andrew Volanus, of Lithuania, in 1579, on the Nature and Expiation of Christ, Faust Socin was urged by the Brethren to draw up a reply to it. With this request he complied; but as he was allowed only a few days for the work, (the messenger who brought the letter from Volanus being obliged to return with the utmost speed,) he called it an extemporaneous reply, and declined affixing his name to it. This was the first work which he composed after he settled in Poland. He revised and corrected it in 1588, and in the same year offered it to the public eye, with a Dedication to John Kiszka, and an answer to all that Volanus had objected. A second edition of the whole was published at Racow in 1627, 8vo.

5. Theological Assertions concerning the Triune God, against the New Samosatenians, extracted from the Lectures of the College of Posnania ; together with the Animadversions of Faust Socin (Fol. 423—-438): also some brief Treatises on different Subjects pertaining to the Christian Religion; viz. 1. An Explanation of Passages alleged to prove the Personality of the Holy Spirit (Fol. 438—444). 2. Extemporaneous Animadversions on a Paper of John Niemojevius against a certain Part of the Disputation concerning Jesus Christ the Saviour (Fol. 444 —446). 3. Notes on a Paper of N. N. concerning the Reign of Christ on Earth (Fol. 446—448). 4. Notes on a Paper of Everhard Spangenberg concerning the Two Beasts of the Apocalypse (Fol. 448—453). 5. Reply to Objections, or Articles of John Cutten, an Evangelical Minister (Fol. 453—455). This Reply is repeated, (Fol. 463—465). 6. A short Discourse on the Causes of a Belief, or Disbelief of the Gospel ; and on the Reason why the Believer is rewarded, and the Unbeliever punished by God (Fol. 455—457). 7. Against the Millennarians concerning Christ's Reign of a thousand Years on Earth (Fol. 457—461). 8. A very short Disputation concerning the Flesh of Christ, against the Mennonites (Fol. 461—463). 9. Two Letters of John Niemojevius on the Sacrifice and Invocation of Christ, with distinct Replies to each by F. S. (Fol. 465—488). The Reply to the Posnanian Assertions was first published in 1583, 8vo. A second edition was printed by Sebastian Sternacki at Racow in 1611, 8vo.; and a third in 1618, 8vo. The Assertions of the Posnanians, and the Animadversions of F. S., are both twentyfive in number.

6. A Disputation between Erasmus Johannis and Faust Socin on the Existence of the only-begotten Son of God (Fob 489—528): first published at Racow in 1595, 8vo., with a Dedication to Jerome Moscorovius, who had a short time before gone over to the Socinian party. Bock saw a second edition, which was printed at Racow in 1626, and of which Sandius appears to have had no knowledge. The history of this disputation will be given in the account of Erasmus Johannis, who, at the time that it took place, was an Arian Minister, and Pastor of a Church at Clausenburg.

7. A Reply to a small Polish Treatise of James Wujek, the Jesuit, concerning the Divinity of the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit; together with a Refutation of what the Jesuit, Bellarmin, has written on the same Subject (Fol. 529—624). This Reply was translated from the Latin of F. S. by Peter Statorius, Jun., and published in the Polish language in 1593. It was first published in Latin, with the author's Preface, but without his name, in 1595, 8vo. A second edition in 8vo. issued from the press of Sternacki at Racow in 1624, in the title-page of which the author's name appeared for the first time.

8. A Defence of the Animadversions of F. S. on the Theological Assertions of the College of Posnania, in reply to Gabriel Eutropius, Canon of Posnania (Fol. 625—708): written in the year 1584, but not published till 1618, when Jerome Moscorovius superintended the printing of it at Racow, in 8vo. This Defence, in the opinion of the editor, exhibits the talent, learning and controversial dexterity of Faust to more advantage, than any of his writings ; and though it was not published till many years after the author's death, he was accustomed to say, in his usual modest manner, whenever it was alluded to, that none of his works gave him so little dissatisfaction as this.

9. A Disputation concerning the Invocation of Jesus Christ, which Faust Socin held in Writing with Francis Davidis, in the Years 1578 and 1579, a little before the Death of Francis; containing a Reply to F. D.'s Defence of his Theses concerning the Non-invocation of Christ ; with a Dedicatory Epistle of Socin to the Unitarian Ministers of Transylvania, apologizing for the Delay in the Appearance of this Reply, and repelling the Calumnies long since circulated against him, in a Paper addressed to N. N., under the Name of the Transylvanian Brethren (Fol. 709—766). An imperfect and mutilated edition of this celebrated controversy appeared, in the Hungarian language, as early as the year 1580, in a Defence of Francis David, drawn up by Palaeologus and his friends. The most complete account of it was the one published by Socin himself, in the work, of which the title is given above. It was printed by Valentine Radecius in the year 1595, 8vo., at the expense of John Kiszka. A second edition was published at Racow in 1626, 8vo., which is mentioned by Bock as having been unknown to Sandius.

10. A Disputation held between Faust Socin and Christian Francken, on the 14th of March, 1584, on the Honour due to Christ ; viz. Whether Christ, as he is not God in the most perfect Sense, is or is not to be regarded as an Object of Religious Worship ; with a Correction of the Misstatements of C. F. (Fol. 767—777). The person with whom this Disputation was held had formerly been a Jesuit at Rome, but having renounced Catholicism, and become an Antitrinitarian, he was appointed to the situation of master of the public school in the town of Chmielnik. It was while he filled this office, that the above Disputation took place. (Vide Art. 111.) Francken himself published an account of it, which being full of errors and misrepresentations, Socin was induced to give his own statement of the matter ; but this was not published till 1618, when it issued from the press of Sebastian Sternacki at Racow, in 8vo., with some Notes and Answers to what Francken had advanced. Appended to it were, Fragments of a fuller Answer to Francis Davidis on the Invocation of Christ (Fol. 777—796); Another Fragment of Strictures by F. S. on the Paper of an anonymous Writer concerning the Difference between the Old and New Testament (Fol. 797, 798) ; Certain Questions of Francis Davidis, and the Answer of Faust Socin (Fol. 798, 799); Antitheses from the Disputation between F. S. and F. D., collected by Socin himself (Fol. 799—801) ; Theses, in which is explained the Opinion of F. D. concerning the Office of Christ, together with the Antitheses of the Church, written by F. S., and presented to the Most Illustrious Prince of Transylvania, Stephen Bathory (Fol. 801—803) ; Certain Things to be especially attended to in the Controversy concerning the Invocation of Christ (Fol. 803) ; On the Book of Revelation, and the Testimonies which it furnishes against those, who wholly object to the Invocation of Jesus Christ (Fol. 803) ; A Paper of F. S. against the Semi-Judaizers (Fol. 804—806); and Three Letters of Martin Seidelius to the Members of the Lesser Church at Cracow, "Worshipers of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Answers of F. S. in the Name of that Church (Fol. 806—812).

Some of the shorter works of Faust Socin were printed twice over, but with slight additions and variations, in the Bibl. Fratr. Polon.; such as the treatise against the Chiliasts, or Millennarians, (T. I. p. 440; II. 457,) the first Synopsis on Justification, &c. (T. I. p. 601; II. 247,) and the Reply to Objections or Articles of John Cutten (T. II. pp. 454. 463).

Sometimes Faust Socin lent his assistance, in ushering into the world the works of others ; and probably all that he did in this way will never become fully known. It is certain, however, that he edited the "Posthumous Dialogues of Sebastian Castalio, on Predestination, Election, Free-Will and Faith;" and John Licinius's "Aristotelian Scheme of Doctrines, illustrated with Theological Examples, for the Use of Schools:"—the former in 1578, under the assumed name of "Felix Turpio Urbevetanus," and the latter in 1586, under that of "Gratianus Prosper." He also published his First Synopsis on Justification, under the feigned name of "Gratianus Turpio Gerapolensis;" and his Disputation on Rom. vii. under that of " Prosper Dysidaeus." Bock thinks, that these names were formed by those, who undertook the publication of his writings. Prosper, Gratianus and Felix seem to have been adopted as synonyms of his Christian name Faust. Turpio is evidently derived from Turpis, the equivalent of the Italian Sozzo, which some suppose to have been the origin of the family surname, Sozzini. Dysidceus, from the Greek AvtreiSric, denotes the same as Turpis or Deformis. Urbevetanus and Gerapolensis represent the adjective Senensis; Sen. Vet. and Ger. being respectively the first syllables in the words Senex, Vetus and Ttpwv. For other instances of the imposition and adoption of such names, the reader may consult the account of Michael Gittichius, Art. 168.

(Vidend. Vita F. Socini conscripta ab Equite Polono [Sam. Przipcovio]. Toulmin's Memoirs of the Life, Character, Sentiments and Writings of F. Socin. Lond. 1777, 8vo. Sandii B. A. pp. 64—81. Moreri Diet. Hist Art. Socin. Bayh, Diet. Hist, et Crit. Art. Socin. Bock, Hist. Ant. T. H. C. iii. § v—x. pp. 654—850. Thorna Crenii Animadv. Philol. et Hist. P. iv. C. ult. pp. 233—242. Krasinski's Hist. Sketch of the Ref. in Poland, Vol. II. Chap. xiv. pp. 364—378. Mon. Rep. Vol. XIV. (1818) pp. 382—385. Bibl. Fratr. Polon. T. I . II. passim, etc.)

Le Roux Didier - Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author."