All the while he was at Basil and about Grermany he kept his opinions much to himself, being intent upon the study of his uncle Lfclius' notes, as the Polonian gentleman who wrote his life confesseth;^ whereunto he added the Dialogues of Bernardus Ochinus, as himself acknowledgeth, which about that time were turned into Latin by Castalio,^ as he professed, to get money by his labour to live upon (though he pleads that he read Ochinus' Dialogues in Poland,* and as it seems not before), and from tlience he was esteemed to have taken his doctrine of the mediation of Christ.
Tiie papers of his uncle Ltelius, of which himself often makes mention, were principally his comment \i])on the first chapter of St John, and some notes upon sundry texts of Scripture giving testimony to the deity of Christ ; among which Faustus extols that abominable corruption of John viii. 58, of which afterward I shall speak at large, Socin. Eespon. ad Eras. Johan. His comment on the first of John,* Beza tells us, is the most de- praved and corrupt that ever was put forth, its author having outgone all that went before him in depraving that portion of Scripture.
^ " Illic solidum triennium qnod excurrit theologiaj studio incubuit, paucissimis Ltelii patrui scriptis et pluribus ab iis relictis notis multiim adjutus est " — Vita Faust. Socin.
2 " Bernardini Ochini Dialogos transtuli, non ut judex, sed ut translator; et ex ejus- modi opera ad alendam familiain qusestum faceve solitus." — Castal. Apol.
3 " lllud certissiinum est, Gregorium Zai-novocium, ministrum lit vocant evangelieum qui nominatim adveisus di-putationeni meam do ,Ic^u Cliristo Salvatore libellum Polo- nice edidit, iu ejus pra^fatione assererc, nie ex Ochini Dialogis aunis abhinc circiter tri- ginta quinque editis sententiam illius mere disputati^nis accepisse, nam certe in Dialogis illis, quorum non pauca exempla jamdiu in ipsa Polonia mihi videre contigit," etc.^ Faust. Socin. Ep. ad Martinum V^aidovitum Acad. Craco. Pi-ot'essoiem.
* " Lselius in Samosateni partes clam transiit ; vei-bo Dei ut ex quodara ejus sci'ipto nunc liquet adeo vcteratorie et plane versute depvavato, ac praesertim primo evanirelii Joliann. capite, ut mihi quidem videatur omnes ejus corruptores superasse." — Bez. Ep 81.
26 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.
The comment itself is published by Junius, " in defenslone sanctse Tri- nitutis," and confuted by him ; and Zanchius, at large, "De Tribus Elohim, lib. vi. cap. ii., et deinceps ; " Faustus varying something from his uncle in the carrying on of the same design.
His book, " De Jesu Christo Servatore," he wrote, as the author of his life assures us, whilst he was in and about Basil, as also many passages in his epistles and other writings manifest.
About the year 1575 he began it, which he finished about the year ]578, although the book was not printed till the year 1594;^ for upon the divulging of it (he then living at Cracovia), a tumult was raised against him by the unruly and disorderly students, wherein he was dragged up and down and beaten, and hardly escaped with his life ; [against] which inhumane i:)rocedence he expostulates at large in an epistle to Martin Vaidovita, a professor of the university, by whose means he was delivered from being murdered. But this fell out in the year 1598, as is evident from the date of that epistle, four years after the book was printed.
The book is written against one Covet, whom I know by nothing else but what of his disputes with Socinus is by him published. Socinus con- fesseth that he was a learned man, and in repute for learning;^ and, in- deed, if we may take an estimate of the man from the little that is there delivered of him, he was a godly, honest, and very learned man, and spake as much in the cause as might be expected or was needful, before farther opi)osition was made to the truth he did defend. Of all the books of him concerning whom we speak, this his disputation, " De Jesu Christo Serva- tore," is written with the greatest strength, subtilty, and plausibility, neither is any thing said afterward by himself or the rest of his followers that is not comprised in it. Of this book he was wont afterward to boast, as Crellius informs us, and to say, " That if he might have some excellent adversary to deal withal upon the point, he then would show what could farther be spoken of the subject."*
This book, at its first coming out, was confuted by Gregorius Zarno- vecius (as Socinus testifies in his epistle to Vaidovita) in the Polonian lan- guage: which was afterward translated into Latin by Conradus Huberus, and printed at Eraneker, anno 1618; also by one Otho Casmannus; and thirdly, at large, by Sibrandus Lubbertus, anno 1611, who, together with his refutation, printed the whole book itself, I hope to no disadvantage of tlie truth, though a late apostate to Borne, whom we called here Hugh Cressey, but is lately commenced B, Serenus Cressey, a priest of the order of Benedict, and who would have been even a Carthusian (such high honour did the man aim at), tells us that some of his scholars procui*ed him to do it, that so they might get the book itself in their hands.* But the book will speak for itself with indifierent readers, and for its clearness is ex- tolled by Vossius.* Generally, all that have since written of that subject,