va,
in the year 1553, were born and bred up in the church of Rome: this is
the best apology that can be made for them."--_Biographia Evangelica_,
vol. II. p. 42.

The apostles John and James would have called down fire from heaven;
Calvin and Cranmer kindled it on earth. This, however, is the only fault
alleged against Calvin; but "Let him that is without sin cast the first
stone."

"It ought, however," says a sensible writer, "to be acknowledged that
persecution for religious principles was not at that time peculiar to
any party of christians, but common to all, whenever they were invested
with civil power." It was a detestable error; but it was the error of
the age. They looked upon heresy in the same light as we look upon those
crimes which are inimical to the peace of civil society; and,
accordingly, proceeded to punish heretics by the sword of the civil
magistrate. If Socinians did not persecute their adversaries so much as
Trinitarians, it was because they were not equally invested with the
power of doing so. Mr. Lindsay acknowledges, that Faustus Socinus
himself was not free from persecution in the case of Francis David,
superintendent of the Unitarian churches in Transylvania. David had
disputed with Socinus on the invocation of Christ, and died in prison in
consequence of his opinion, and some offence taken at his supposed
indiscreet propagation of it from the pulpit. "I wish I could say," adds
Mr. Lindsay, "that Socinus, or his friend Blandrata, had done all in
their power to prevent his commitment, or procure his release
afterwards." The difference between Socinus and David was very slight.
They both held Christ to be a mere man. The former, however, was for
praying to him; which the latter, with much greater consistency,
disapproved. Considering this, the persecution to which Socinus was
accessary was as great as that of Calvin; and there is no reason to
think, but that if David had differed as much from Socinus, as Servetus
did from Calvin, and if the civil magistrates had been for burning him,
Socinus would have concurred with them. To this it might be added, that
the conduct of Socinus was marked with disingenuity: in that he
considered the opinion of David in no very heinous point of light; but
was afraid of increasing the odium under which he and his party already
lay, among other Christian churches.

It was the opinion, that _erroneous religious principles are punishable
by the civil magistrate_, t