Socinianism, Socinus
{soh - sin' - ee - uhn - izm}
Advanced Information
Socinianism is the name given to the specific form of
anti - trinitarianism or Unitarianism stated by the Italian
theologian Socinus (Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1539 - 1604) and
developed during the early 17th century, particularly in Poland.
Socinus grew up in Italy under the influence of his uncle
Laelius Socinus. When he raised doubts about the divinity of
Christ, he came into conflict with the teachings of both Roman
Catholicism and the Reformation. After a short period in
Transylvania, Socinus took refuge in Poland, where he spent
the rest of his life in leadership of the antitrinitarian movement
there. In 1598 he was forced to flee from Krakow, and he spent
the rest of his life in the village of Luclawice.
Socinus prepared drafts for the Racovian Catechism, the first
formal statement of Socinian beliefs, which was published at
Rakow, in southern Poland, in 1605. It set forth a moderate form
of unitarianism that stated that Christ was a man who received
divine power as a result of his blameless life and miraculous
resurrection. The movement was suppressed in Poland after 1658,
but Socinian groups survived in Transylvania, England, and
elsewhere. John Biddle, the founder of English unitarianism,
was influenced by Socinianism.
|
|
Frederick A Norwood
Bibliography
S Kot, Socinianism in Poland (1957); E M Wilbur, A
History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and Its Antecedents (1945);
G H Williams, The Radical Reformation (1962).
Socinianism
Catholic Information
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.
Publication information
Written by Hugh T. Pope. Transcribed by Janet Grayson.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton
Company. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
The individual articles presented here were generally first published
in the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed
on the Internet in May 1997.
This page - -
- - is at
This subject presentation was last updated on - -
Copyright Information
Send an e-mail question or comment to us:
E-mail
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html