Socinianism
Socinianism
The body of doctrine held by the followers of Lelio Sozzini, or Socinus (1525 to 1562), a priest of Siena, Italy, and of his nephew, Fausto Sozzini (1539 to 1604), who carried his teaching to Poland where it first became important. The outstanding feature of Socinianism is its denial of the Trinity. It bases its teaching on the Bible “interpreted by reason,” consequently it denies all mysteries which reason cannot comprehend. Generally speaking Socinians denied the Virgin Birth, though the older Socinians taught that Christ was the Logos (John 1), and so to be adored. They also denied the Redemption, holding that the Passion of Christ is a mere example to us and a pledge of our forgiveness. Socinianism spread to various parts of Europe in its earlier years. While it is much akin to modern Unitarianism, it is not organically its forerunner.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Socinianism
The body of doctrine held by one of the numerous Antitrinitarian sects to which the Reformation gave birth. The Socinians derive their name from two natives of Siena, Lelio Sozzini (1525-62) and his nephew Fausto Sozzini (1539-1604). The surname is variously given, but its Latin form, Socinus, is that currently used. It is to Fausto, or Faustus Socinus, that the sect owes its individuality, but it arose before he came into contact with it. In 1546 a secret society held meetings at Vicenza in the Diocese of Venice to discuss, among other points, the doctrine of the Trinity. Among the members of this society were Blandrata, a well-known physician, Alciatus, Gentilis, and Lelio, or Laelius Socinus. The last-named, a priest of Siena, was the intimate friend of Bullinger, Calvin, and Melanchthon. The object of the society was the advocacy not precisely of what were afterwards known as Socinian principles, but of Antitrinitarianism. The Nominalists, represented by Abelard, were the real progenitors of the Antitrinitarians of the Reformation period, but while many of the Nominalists ultimately became Tritheists, the term Antitrinitarian means expressly one who denies the distinction of persons in the Godhead. The Antitrinitarians are thus the later representatives of the Sabellians, Macedonians, and Arians of an earlier period. The secret society which met at Vicenza was broken up, and most of its members fled to Poland. Laelius, indeed, seems to have lived most at Zurich, but he was the mainspring of the society, which continued to hold meetings at Cracow for the discussion of religious questions. He died in 1562 and a stormy period began for the members of the party.
The inevitable effect of the principles of the Reformation was soon felt, and schism made its appearance in the ranks of the Antitrinitarians–for so we must call them all indiscriminately at this time. In 1570 the Socinians separated, and, through the influence of the Antitrinitarian John Sigismund, established themselves at Racow. Meanwhile, Faustus Socinus had obtained possession of his uncle’s papers and in 1579 came to Poland. He found the various bodies of the sect divided, and he was at first refused admission because he refused to submit to a second baptism. In 1574 the Socinians had issued a “Catechism of the Unitarians”, in which, while much was said about the nature and perfection of the Godhead, silence was observed regarding those Divine attributes which are mysterious. Christ was the Promised Man; He was the Mediator of Creation, i. e., of Regeneration. It was shortly after the appearance of this catechism that Faustus arrived on the scene and, in spite of initial opposition, he succeeded in attaching all parties to himself and thus securing for them a degree of unity which they had not hitherto enjoyed. Once in possession of power, his action was high-handed. He had been invited to Siebenburg in order to counteract the influence of the Antitrinitarian bishop Francis David (1510-79). David, having refused to accept the peculiarly Socinian tenet that Christ, though not God, was to be adored, was thrown into prison, where he died. Budnaeus, who adhered to David’s views, was degraded and excommunicated in 1584. The old catechism was not suppressed and a new one published under the title of the “Catechism of Racow”. Though drawn up by Socinus, it was not published until 1605, a year after his death; it first appeared in Polish, then in Latin in 1609.
Meanwhile the Socinians had flourished; they had established colleges, they held synods, and they had a printing press whence they issued an immense amount of religious literature in support of their views; this was collected, under the title “Bibliotheca Antitrinitarianorum”, by Sandius. In 1638 the Catholics in Poland insisted on the banishment of the Socinians, who were in consequence dispersed. It is evident from the pages of Bayle that the sect was dreaded in Europe; many of the princes were said to favour it secretly, and it was predicted that Socinianism would overrun Europe. Bayle, however, endeavours to dispel these fears by dwelling upon the vigorous measures taken to prevent its spread in Holland. Thus, in 1639, at the suggestion of the British Ambassador, all the states of Holland were advised of the probable arrival of the Socinians after their expulsion from Poland; while in 1653 very stringent decrees were passed against them. The sect never had a great vogue in England; it was distasteful to Protestants who, less logical, perhaps, but more conservative in their views, were not prepared to go to the lengths of the Continental Reformers. In 1612 we find the names of Leggatt and Wightman mentioned as condemned to death for denying the Divinity of Christ. Under the Commonwealth, John Biddle was prominent as an upholder of Socinian principles; Cromwell banished him to the Scilly Isles, but he returned under a writ of habeas corpus and became minister of an Independent church in London. After the Restoration, however, Biddle was cast again into prison, where he died in 1662. The Unitarians are frequently identified with the Socinians, but there are fundamental differences between their doctrines.
Fundamental Doctrines
These may be gathered from the “Catechism of Racow”, mentioned above and from the writings of Socinus himself, which are collected in the “Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum”. The basis was, of course, private judgment; the Socinians rejected authority and insisted on the free use of reason, but they did not reject revelation. Socinus, in his work “De Auctoritate Scripturae Sacrae”, went so far as to reject all purely natural religion. Thus for him the Bible was everything, but it had to be interpreted by the light of reason. Hence he and his followers thrust aside all mysteries; as the Socinian John Crell (d. 1633) says in his “De Deo et ejus Attributis”, “Mysteries are indeed exalted above reason, but they do not overturn it; they by no means extinguish its light, but only perfect it”. This would be quite true for a Catholic, but in the mouth of Socinian it meant that only those mysteries which reason can grasp are to be accepted. Thus both in the Racovian Catechism and in Socinus’s “Institutiones Religionis Christianae”, only the unity, eternity, omnipotence, justice, and wisdom of God are insisted on, since we could be convinced of these; His immensity, infinity, and omnipresence are regarded as beyond human comprehension, and therefore unnecessary for salvation. Original justice meant for Socinus merely that Adam was free from sin as a fact, not that he was endowed with peculiar gifts; hence Socinus denied the doctrine of original sin entirely. Since, too, faith was for him but trust in God, he was obliged to deny the doctrine of justification in the Catholic sense; it was nothing but a judicial act on the part of God. There were only two sacraments, and, as these were held to be mere incentives to faith, they had no intrinsic efficacy. Infant baptism was of course rejected. There was no hell; the wicked were annihilated.
Christology
This point was particularly interesting, as on it the whole of Socinianism turns. God, the Socinians maintained, and rightly, is absolutely simple; but distinction of persons is destructive of such simplicity; therefore, they concluded the doctrine of the Trinity is unsound. Further, there can be no proportion between the finite and the infinite, hence there can be no incarnation, of the Deity, since that would demand some such proportion. But if, by an impossibility, there were distinction of persons in the Deity, no Divine person could be united to a human person, since there can by no unity between two individualities. These arguments are of course puerile and nothing but ignorance of Catholic teaching can explain the hold which such views obtained in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As against the first argument, see St. Thomas, (Summa I:12:1, ad 4); for the solution of the others see Petavius. But the Socinians did not become Arians, as did Campanus and Gentilis. The latter was one of the original society which held its meetings at Vicenza; he was beheaded at Berne in 1566. They did not become Tritheists, as Gentilis himself was supposed by some to be. Nor did they become Unitarians, as might have been expected. Socinus had indeed many affinities with Paul of Samosata and Sabellius; with them he regarded the Holy Spirit as merely an operation of God, a power for sanctification. But his teaching concerning the person of Christ differed in some respects from theirs. For Socinus, Christ was the Logos, but he denied His pre-existence; He was the Word of God as being His interpreter (interpres divinae voluntatis). The passages from St. John which present the Word as the medium of creation were explained by Socinus of regeneration only. At the same time Christ was miraculously begotten: He was a perfect man, He was the appointed mediator, but He was not God, only deified man. In this sense He was to be adored; and it is here precisely that we have the dividing line between Socinianism and Unitarianism, for the latter system denied the miraculous birth of Christ and refused Him adoration. It must be confessed that, on their principles, the Unitarians were much more logical.
Redemption and Sacraments
Socinus’s views regarding the person of Christ necessarily affected his teaching on the office of Christ as Redeemer, and consequently on the efficacy of the sacraments. Being purely man, Christ did not work out our redemption in the sense of satisfying for our sins; and consequently we cannot regard the sacraments as instruments whereby the fruits of that redemption are applied to man. Hence Socinus taught that the Passion of Christ was merely an example to us and a pledge of our forgiveness. All this teaching is syncretized in the Socinian doctrine regarding the Last Supper; it was not even commemorative of Christ’s Passion, it was rather an act of thanksgiving for it.
The Church and Socianism
Needless to say, the tenets of the Socinians have been repeatedly condemned by the Church. As antitrinitarianists, they are opposed to the express teaching of the first six councils; their view of the person of Christ is in contradiction to the same councils, especially that of Chalcedon and the famous “Tome” (Ep. xxviii) of St. Leo the Great (cf. Denzinger, no. 143). For its peculiar views regarding the adoration of Christ, cf. can. ix of the fifth Ecumenical Synod (Denz., 221). It is opposed, too, to the various creeds, more especially to that of St. Athanasius. It has also many affinities with the Adoptionist heresy condemned in the Plenary Council of Frankfort, in 794, and in the second letter of Pope Hadrian I to the bishops of Spain (cf. Denz., 309-314). Its denial of the Atonement is in opposition to the decrees against Gotteschalk promulgated in 849 (cf. Denz., 319), and also to the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council against the Albigensians (Denz., 428; cf. also Conc. Trid., Sess. xxii., cap. i. de Sacrificio Missae, in Denz., 938). The condemned propositions of Abelard (1140) might equally well stand for those of the Socinians (cf. Denz., 368 sqq.). The same must be said of the Waldensian heresy: the Profession of Faith drawn up against them by Innocent III might be taken as a summary of Socinian errors. The formal condemnation of Socinianism appeared first in the Constitution of Paul IV, “Cum quorundam:, 1555 (Denz., 993); this was confirmed in 1603 by Clement VIII, or “Dominici gregis”, but it is to be noted that both of these condemnations appeared before the publication of the “Catechism of Racow” in 1605, hence they do not adequately reflect the formal doctrines of Socinianism. At the same time it is to be remarked, that according to many, this catechism itself does not reflect the doctrines really held by the leaders of the party; it was intended for the laity alone. From the decree it would appear that in 1555 and again in 1603 the Socinians held:that there was no Trinity, that Christ was not consubstantial with the Father and Holy Spirit, that He was not conceived of the Holy Spirit, but begotten by St. Joseph, that His Death and Passion were not undergone to bring about our redemption, that finally the Blessed Virgin was not the Mother of God, neither did she retain her virginity. It would seem from the Catechism that the Socinians of 1605 held that Christ was at least miraculously conceived, though in what sense they held this is not clear.
———————————–
HUGH POPE Transcribed by Janet Grayson
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Socinianism
a development of the Arian heresy, has for its leading feature the denial of our Lord’s divine nature, with the belief that he was a typical and unique man, displaying in so unprecedented a manner those higher characteristics of human nature which make it a shadow of the divine nature that he was called the Son of God. SEE SOCINUS.
I. System of Theology. Socinianism represents Jesus as having been born of the Virgin Mary by a supernatural interposition of the Holy Ghost, in consequence of which he was a man free from original sin and its evil inclinations, but only a man. He was outwardly anointed prophet, priest, and king at his baptism by a material descent of a divine force and efficacy upon him in the form of a dove; but his full commission was given to him during some one or more interviews which he had with God when rapt up into heaven; probably during the forty days in the wilderness. He was (shutting out any idea of deity) the anointed Son of God, and was established in the fulness of his dominion by God, who raised him (not by any cooperation of his own) from the dead, and delegated to him a supreme authority over men and angels. But in all this he is only a created being, and worship rendered to him should only be given to him as the representative of God, not as his own right. The Socinian system discards altogether the idea of union between divine and human nature, alleging that the two are so infinitely removed from each other that union between them is an impossibility. Its later development does not recognize Christ as, in any sense, an object of worship, denies the supernatural origin which was attributed to him by the earlier form of the heresy, and looks upon him only as a very exalted saint and moral teacher.
Socinianism, however, is not merely a system of negations, but includes positive propositions. It not only denies the doctrine of the Trinity, but positively asserts that the Godhead is one in person as well as in essence. It not only denies the proper divinity of Jesus Christ, but positively asserts that he was a mere man that is, a man, and nothing else or more than a man. It not only denies the vicarious atonement of Christ, but it asserts that men, by their own repentance and good works, procure the forgiveness of their sins and the enjoyment of God’s favor; and thus, while denying that, in any proper sense, Christ is their Savior, it teaches that men save themselves that is, in so far as they need salvation. It denies that the Spirit is a person who possesses the divine nature, and teaches that the Holy Ghost in Scripture describes or expresses merely a quality or attribute of God.
In its theology Socinianism represents God as a being whose moral character is composed exclusively of goodness and mercy, desiring merely the happiness of his creatures; thus virtually excluding from his character that immaculate holiness which leads him to hate sin, and that inflexible justice which constrains him to inflict upon the impenitent the punishment they deserve. It also denies that God foresees the actions of his creatures, or knows anything about them until they come to pass; except in some special cases in which he has foreordained the event, and foresees it because he foreordained it. That they may not seem to derogate from God’s omniscience, they admit that God knows all things that are knowable; but they contend that contingent events are unknowable, even by an infinite being.
In its anthropology Socinianism denies, in substance, the fall of man, and all original depravity, and asserts that men are now, as to all moral qualities, tendencies, and capacities, in the same condition as when the race was created. Having no original righteousness, Adam, when he sinned, did not lose any quality of that sort. He simply incurred the divine displeasure, but retained the same moral nature with which he was created. Created naturally mortal, he would have died whether he had sinned or not. Men are now, in their moral nature and tendencies, just as pure and holy as Adam when created; without, however, any positive tendency towards God or towards sin. Men are now under more unfavorable circumstances than Adam was, because of the many examples of sin, which increase the probabilities of actually falling into sin.. Some avoid sin altogether, and obtain eternal blessedness as a reward; others sin, but there is no difficulty in obtaining forgiveness from God, and thus escaping the consequences of transgression.
In its Christology this system naturally denies the necessity of an atonement, and. declares that Christ had nothing to do in the world for the fulfilment of his mission but to communicate fuller and more certain information about the divine, character and government, the path or duty and future blessedness, and to set before men an example of obedience to God’s law and will. The old Socinians rejected, therefore, the priestly office of Christ altogether, or conjoined and confounded it with the kingly one; while the modern Socinians abolish the kingly office and resolve all into, the prophetical. His suffering of death, of course, did not belong to the execution of the priestly, but of the prophetical office; in other words, its sole object and design were confined within the general range of serving to declare and confirm to men the will of God. Thus was revealed an immortality beyond death, of which no certainty had been given to men before Christ’s death.
With respect to eschatology, Socinianism denies the resurrection of the body as a thing absurd and impossible. It holds to what is called a resurrection, which is not a resurrection of the same body, but the formation and the union to the soul of a different body. It repudiates the doctrine of eternal punishment; but Socinians are divided between the two theories of the annihilation of the wicked (held by older Socinians) and the final restoration of all men (adopted by modern Socinians).
As regards the Church and its sacraments, Socinianism teaches that the Church is not, in any proper sense, a divine institution, but is a mere voluntary association of men, drawn together by similarity of views and a desire to promote one another’s welfare. The object of the sacraments is to teach men, and to impress divine truth upon their minds; and they are in no way whatever connected with any act on God’s part in the communication of spiritual blessings.
II. The Sect. Laelius Socinus (q.v.) is usually regarded as the true founder of the Socinian system, though his nephew, Faustus, was its chief defender and promulgator. The origin of the sect is usually traced by their own writers to the year 1546, when colleges or conferences of about forty individuals were in the habit of meeting, chiefly at Vicenza, in the Venetian territory, with a view of introducing a purer faith by discarding a number of opinions held by Protestants as well as Papists although this account is discredited by Mosheim and others. The first catechism and confession of the Socinians was printed at Cracow, Poland, in 1574, at which time the sect received the name of Anabaptists. SEE CATECHISM, 2, 8. George Schomann is believed to have been the author of this early Socinian creed. This catechism was, however, supplanted in the 17th century by the Racovian Catechism, composed by Schmalz, a learned German Socinian, who had settled in Poland. From Poland, Socinian doctrines were carried, in 1563, into Transylvania, chiefly through the influence and exertions of George Blandrata, a Polish physician. For upwards of a hundred years Poland was the stronghold of this sect; but in 1658, by a decree of the diet of Warsaw, they were expelled from the kingdom; and this severe edict being repeated in 1661, they were completely rooted out from the country. The father of Socinianism in England was John Biddle, who, towards the middle of the 17th century, was the first who openly taught principles subversive of the received doctrine of the Trinity. The publication of Biddle’s Twofold Catechism caused great excitement both in England and on the Continent. Various answers to this Socinian pamphlet appeared; but the most able was that of the celebrated Dr. John Owen, in his Vindicioe Evangelicoe. The Biddelians were never numerous, and speedily disappeared. The modern Socinians, who took the name of Unitarians (q.v.), were not a conspicuous party in England till the close of the 18th century, when Priestley and others publicly avowed and propagated antitrinitarian sentiments. A considerable difference, however, exists between the opinions of the ancient and those of the modern Socinians. Both the Socini, uncle and nephew, as well as their immediate followers, admitted the miraculous conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary, and that he ought to be worshipped, as having been advanced by God to the government of the whole created universe doctrines usually rejected by the modern Socinians. These latter are now, at least in the United States, quite generally substituting, for Socinianism proper, the pantheistic infidelity of Germany, though under a sort of profession of Christianity.
See Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2; Gardner, Faiths of the World, s.v.; Cottle, Essays on Socinianism; Best, Letters on Socinianism; Fuller, Socinian and Calvinistic Systems (8vo); Groves, Lines to a Socinian Friend; Socinianism, Rise, Growth, and Danger of, in the Christian Disciple, 3, 429; also the list in Malcom, Theological Index, s.v.