The Vienna exemplar of the ‘Christianismi Restitutio,’ again, when we first meet with a notice of it, belonged to Markos Szent Ivanayi, a Transylvanian gentleman, resident in London in the year 1665. Szent Ivanayi must, we presume, have held Unitarian principles, and on his return to his native country (in some districts of which Unitarianism is the established or prevailing form of religion), he presented his copy of the ‘Restitutio’ to the Congregation of Claudiopolis, with which he was in communion; and they, at a later date, by the hands of their superior, Stephen Agh, gave it, as the most valuable thing they possessed, to Samuel, Count Teleki de Izek, in acknowledgment of some act of favour from the magnate. The Count, on his part, informed of the rarity of the book, and rightly deeming that it was a gift such as a subject might offer to his sovereign, presented it to the Emperor Joseph the Second of Austria, by whom it was graciously accepted and forthwith enshrined in the great Library of Vienna. This copy of the ‘Restitutio’ is in better condition than that of Paris--‘_præstat nitiore_,’ says Dr. de Murr, from whom we have the foregoing information (De Murr, Chr. Th., M.D., ‘Adnotationes ad Bibliothecas Hallerianas, cum variis ad Scripta Michaelis Serveti pertinentibus.’ 4to. Erlangen. 1805). The authorities of Roman Catholic Austria, in 1790, more liberally disposed than those of Protestant England in the year of grace 1723, not only gave Dr. de Murr permission to have a transcript made of the ‘Restitutio,’ but raised no objections to his having his copy printed and published--a task which he happily accomplished in 1791, ‘when the work appeared anew, like a Phœnix from its ashes,’ as he says. The reprint is, indeed, an exact counterpart of the original--line for line, page for page being followed throughout; and as the letter and paper have also been chosen to correspond as nearly as possible with those of the prototype, it might have been found difficult to distinguish between the one and the other, were a third copy of the original ever to turn up, had not Dr. de Murr put a mark upon his edition in the date of its publication in extremely small figures--thus, 1791, at the bottom of the last page. This, too, is a scarce book, so we presume the edition was small.