By Marian Hillar, President of the Servetus International
Society.
Published in "The Journal from the Radical Reformation. A
Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism." (Part I, Vol. 10, No.
2, 2002; Part II, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2002)
Introduction
Laelius Socinus is considered to be the founder of the Antitrinitarian
intellectual movement and Faustus Socinus the main theoretician
of the established Unitarian (Socinian) church in Poland. They
belong, respectively, to the first and the second generations
of Italian reformers.[1] Faustus Socinus was among the second
generation of Italian religious refugees that, in contrast to
the first generation, was represented by individuals isolated
from the rest of the Italian emigrants in search of a place to
live and to express their religious convictions. They found such
a place in Poland and in Transylvania. He was successful in finding
a supportive group and gaining recognition. However, he refused
to be considered a heresiarch or a leader of the group; rather,
he thought of himself as a teacher of a method of inquiry for
understanding the Scripture.
Reformation versus Radical Reformation
The Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther in 1517, had as
its scope only a limited purpose, namely, to oppose the power
of the pope, both political and regulatory within the church,
and to redress the moral corruption of the church. Emendation
of the moral standing of the church included abolishing many money-making
religious schemes, persecution for free thought in religious matters
(heretics), and abolishing many regulatory decrees clearly designed
to control society and individuals. Unfortunately, as soon as
the reformed churches gained power, the new leaders forgot their
original goals, and relishing with gusto the taste of power, embarked
on the same path they originally condemned. They quickly abolished
free religious thought, introduced their own inquisitorial procedures,
and persecuted anyone whom they considered non-compliant with
their own dogmas and religious and political designs.
But there was another trend in the Reformation, the so-called
Radical Reformation, which was produced by many thoughtful people,
though not all of them attained the same level of sophistication
and advancement. This movement was represented by two variations:
a. The Anabaptist movement with its emphasis on moral conduct
and battle with social injustice, and propagation of the return
to the original, communal way of life of the Christian church,
and b. The Antitrinitarian or Unitarian movement that sprang from
the evangelical and rationalistic tendencies and posited for itself
as a goal an analysis of the entire Christian doctrine and search
for its original meaning in the Scripture.
The term Radical Reformation was introduced by George Huntston
Williams[2] to describe the movements that went further than the
Wittenberg reformers and aimed at the restoration of the primitive
apostolic church. The exponents of the radical movement reproached
the major reformers for stalling the Reformation and keeping the
religious and the worldly reforms separate. They wanted to expand
the Reformation theologically and sociologically into the transformation
of man and of the world. In the tense eschatological atmosphere
their hopes were expressed often in the expectation of the imminent
kingdom of God.
These two movements within the Radical Reformation were not
clearly separated and they overlapped significantly. They themselves
were not uniform but had one most characteristic common trait,
i.e., a tendency to separate the church from temporal power. The
Anabaptist movement derived not so much from the theological differences
with the Wittenberg Reformers as from the disagreement over social
policy. Although initially in his writings Luther aimed at the
reformation of the secular society and its order, he was faced
on the one hand with the profound belief and demands of the Anabaptists
which derived directly from the genuine gospel, and on the other
with the revolutionary peasants. He found recourse in the Old
Testament authority and called on the rulers to implement the
power given to them by the divine will. Thomas Münzer (b.
ca 1490 in Stolberg-on-the-Harz, d. executed after the Frankenhausen
massacre on May 27, 1525) and his followers, together with a variety
of groups that developed later, represented the Anabaptist movement
emphasizing the application of Christian doctrines to social life.
He is described as a "theologian and revolutionary, a single
whole."[3]
The Antitrinitarian movement resulted from a broader theological
conflict over the interpretation and meaning of the Scripture.
This movement assumed its most advanced form in the Unitarian
Church that developed independently in Transylvania and in Poland,
variably called Unitarians, Minor Church, Polish Brethren, Arians,
and Socinians. The last name derives from the name of Faustus
Socinus (Fausto Sozzini), the Italian theologian and scholar who
systematized the doctrine of the church of the Polish Brethren.
His writings were compiled into a nine-volume edition of the Socinian
treatises published in Amsterdam in 1656 as Vols. 1-2 of the Bibliotheca
Fratrum Polonorum. Many of his other works were published in Raków
or in Kraków.
Pioneers of Antitrinitarianism
Michael Servetus (1511-1553) is considered the most prominent
exponent of early Antitrinitarianism. But he also is a central
figure in Western history marking a drastic turn and change in
mentality away from the imposed totalitarian ecclesiastical rule
over all aspects of society.[4] He was not, however, the only
one and certainly not the only initiator of the Antitrinitarian
movement. Four more names are usually quoted in this regard: Martin
Cellarius (Borrhaus), Ludwig Haetzer, Hans Denck, and Jacob Kautz.[5]
Martin Cellarius (Borrhaus, 1499-1564) was originally from Stuttgart.
He studied classical languages, Hebrew, Chaldaean and Syriac in
Wittenberg where he embraced Lutheranism. During the debate with
Anabaptists he changed sides and even later developed Antitrinitarian
views. Thus in 1536 he had to flee to Basel where he assumed the
name of Borrhaus (which is a Greek translation of his name), became
professor of rhetoric and philosophy. He made friends with Laelius
Socinus and Michael Servetus.[6] Ludwig Haetzer (b. ca 1490) was
a former priest in Zürich, who knew the biblical languages
and worked together with Denck in Worms on the translation of
the Prophets (1527). He, according to Sandius,[7] was an Arian
and wrote a manuscript against the deity of Christ which fell
into the hands of Zwingli and was never published. He was put
to death by decapitation by the magistrate of Constance in 1529.
Hans Denck was born ca 1500 in upper Bavaria and attended the
University of Ingolstadt from 1517 to 1520 where he learned Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew. He reacted positively to the Reformation unleashed
by Luther in 1517. In 1522 he arrived in Basel where he was a
corrector for a printing press and was linked for some time with
Oecolampadius, a distinguished reformer and leader of the clergy
there. We find him in 1523 in Nuremberg teaching at St. Sebald's
school. Denck slowly developed ideas that were in conflict with
the Lutheran camp and after an inquisition presided over by Andreas
Osiander he was exiled from the city. His movements after exile
from Nuremberg are not clear. He probably was invited to Mülhausen
and after the collapse of the rebellion he is found in the canton
of Schwyz where he was imprisoned for his negative view of pedobaptism.
Next he contacted the Anabaptists in St. Gall, but was expelled
from there for his universalism – the teaching that all
men would eventually be saved. In 1525 we find him in Augsburg
where he met Balthasar Hubmaier and became a practicing Anabaptist.
Here he baptized Hans Hut and had a confrontation with the Lutheran
ministers. In 1526 he was in Strassburg where, after a debate
with Martin Bucer, he was expelled. He traveled then to Worms
where he joined Ludwig Haetzer in translating the Old Testament
Prophets and where they contacted the radical factions of the
city and converted Jacob Kautz to their Anabaptism in 1527. Denck's
influence was visible in the "theses" which were publicly
defended by Kautz. As usual, suppression followed and Denck moved
to Augsburg where he participated in the synod of 1527 animated
by the apocalyptic teachings of Hans Hut. Denck now asked Oecolampadius
for permission to settle in Basel, but before he could move, he
fell victim to the plague. These three radical reformers represented
a link between Unitarianism and Anabaptism.
Denck was a pioneer of Unitarianism and a champion of undogmatic,
ethical Christianity. His principal work was On the Law of God.
The most salient points of his doctrine were that God's law can
and should be fulfilled; if Christ could do it so can we; Christ
fulfilled the law by leading the way; man can fulfill the law
when he has the truth. Denck, however, underemphasized the fall
of man and rejected Luther's holistic view of human sinfulness
and emphasized the power of man. Man's inner divine connection
makes it possible for him to participate in the spiritual realm.
The human Jesus is a great teacher and the difference between
him and man is in degree. His true followers were expected to
practice his teaching. But Christ had taught that God was love
and love was the fulfillment of law, thus love of God and one's
neighbor were the only proper relationships within the divine
economy. In the interpretation of the Scripture, Denck opposed
it as an external letter to the internal influence of the Holy
Spirit on man. The new life for each man begins independently
of the preaching of prophets and apostles. It begins with the
direct influence of the Spirit. The Scripture remains only a testimony
of the truth, an external work, a historical revelation of little
importance. The internal revelation he called "the internal
Word." It is a special experience acquired by the special
influence of God. "The light which is the invisible Word
of God shines into the hearts of all men .... It is in our very
hearts not idle, but active to do the will of the Father."[8]
From such a principle it follows that there is no need for the
sacraments, ceremonies, rites, sects, and religious authorities.
Every individual was free to seek his own salvation. Moreover,
since the accessibility to the "inner Word" is universal
and individual, nobody holds a monopoly on truth. The differences
arose, according to him, through appeal to isolated parts of the
Scripture. It was more Christian to leave others in error than
to compel them against their conscience. Thus he became an advocate
of tolerance because of concerns for religious truth, moral right
and social justice. In this aspect, too, he was a precursor of
the Socinians. For him infant baptism was not ordained by Christ
but was of human origin. Thus the Christian community had the
freedom to reject it or to use it. The Lord's Supper he interpreted
as a spiritual union with Christ. As to the swearing of an oath
which caused a lot of problems for the Anabaptists, he took the
position that the Scripture was neutral on this issue. Denck harshly
criticized the hypocritical ecclesiastics who reduced faith to
the externals: a belief in systematized deductions about the nature
of God and man, and a mechanical observance of inherited superstitious
rites.
The Diet of Spire (1529) and the Diet of Augsburg (1530) condemned
Anabaptism and its followers prescribing for them the death penalty.
Antitrinitarianism was not emphasized in the doctrines of these
early Anabaptists – they did not seem to attach much importance
to the "superstition of the divinity of Christ."[9]
Adolph von Harnack, a nineteenth century theologian, evaluated
the development of Anabaptism from the critical ideas of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries by mixing them with the elements of the
Renaissance. This process bridged the Middle Ages with modern
theology bypassing the Reformation. "In Anabaptism and Socinianism
the Middle Ages and modern times join hands above the Reformation."
Both Anabaptism and Antitrinitarianism were expressions of the
Radical Reformation. Anabaptism was concerned with radical political
reform, and Antitrinitarianism with doctrinal reform.
The Radical Reformation reversed the formal principle of the
Reformation, i.e., the authority inspired by the Bible. The radical
reformers believed that the legalistic usage of the Bible as practiced
by the Catholic and Protestant churches restricted religion to
the external authority of the church. The radical reformers substituted
in the place of the Bible the spirit, the "internal Word,"
the religious conscience. They affirmed the direct action of God
on man beyond the facts of the Revelation. They also insisted
on rejecting the substantive divinity of Christ and returning
to moral divinity. To them Christ was a man just as other men,
the only difference was one between sinners and a non-sinner.[10]
Criticism initiated by theologian Michael Servetus of the traditional
doctrines, for which he was condemned by the Catholic Inquisition
and by Calvin, was taken up by the Italian humanists who, in northern
Italy, proceeded independently of Luther, Calvin, and other reformers
to think out their own liberal theology.[11] During the Reformation
in Italy the "religious" and moral corruption among
the clergy and high officials of the church reached a peak and
some exposed it and fought it. For example, Pierre Bembo (1470-1547),
a future cardinal, preached persuasion, not faith, did not believe
in the immortality of the soul, and instead of God's grace put
forth "the benefit of the immortal Gods;" Lorenzo Valla
(1407-1457), an Italian humanist, proved the falsity of Constantine's
Donation. Erasmus labeled this trend as rising paganism: "Caput
erigere conatur paganismus" (Paganism attempts to rise its
head).
New ideas were also arriving from abroad, particularly from
Germany through evangelists, merchants, and soldiers, especially
after the sacking of Rome in 1527. There were obviously attempts
to correct the situation, but the pious people who attempted it
differed in their methods of approach. Some arrived at justification
by faith like Contarini, a future cardinal, who organized in Bologna
a center for studies and innovation with professor Giovanni Mollio
who taught the doctrine of Paul of Samosata and ended as a martyr.
In Milan we find Celio Secondo Curione. In Naples there was Juan
Valdés -- a Spaniard (1500-1544) about whom a Catholic
wrote: "He himself made more souls perish than thousands
of heretical soldiers before him;" and a Protestant, Jules
Bonnet described as, "One of those souls of the élite
who could not pass on earth without causing an alteration that
soon became an apostolate." Valdés was able to gather
around himself many prominent people of the epoch who developed
unorthodox religious ideas such as the famous noblewomen, Vittoria
Colonna and Giulia di Gonzaga, as well as Bernardino Ochino[12]
and Peter Martyr Vermigli.[13]
Socinus Family Background
Faustus Socinus came from distinguished families in Siena, a
city and once a republic in Tuscany, on both his paternal and
maternal sides.[14] On his father’s side he came from a
prominent family of lawyers in Siena. His great-great-grandfather,
Mariano Socinus, his grandfather, Mariano, and his father, Alexander,
were known lawyers. His grandfather, Mariano, was related by marriage
to the powerful family of Salvetti in Florence.[15] Paolo Salvetti
helped a magnate from Siena, Pandolfo Petrucci (1452-1512), who
was forced to emigrate from the city in 1487, then to return and
by armed force to take power in the city. He ruled this city first
with his brother, Giacoppo, and after his brother died in 1497,
alone. Pandolfo Petrucci, grateful to Paolo Salvetti for his aid,
offered him citizenship in Siena and convinced him to settle there.
Paolo Salvetti had a daughter Camilla who married Mariano Socinus,
junior (1482-1556), professor of law (in Siena, Pisa, Padova,
Bologna), called Princeps Iurisconsultorum, and they had seven
sons. The oldest was Alexander Socinus, junior, (1509-1541), professor
of civil law in Padova and Macerata, the future father of Faustus
Socinus. The famous uncle of Faustus, Laelius Socinus, (1525-1562)
was their sixth son. After the death of Pandolfo Petrucci in 1512
the rule in Siena fell to his son Borghese Petrucci who, however,
was not able to keep his power and had to leave Siena in 1516.
Faustus’s mother was Agnes Petrucci, a daughter of Borghese
Petrucci, who once ruled over the Republic of Siena, and Victoria
Piccolomini who originated from the prominent noble family of
Piccolomini, and was a granddaughter of Pope Pius III (Francesco
Tedeschi Piccolomini, 1440-1503, pope for 26 days only in 1503).
Agnes Petrucci married Alexander Socinus Jr., and they had three
children, Faustus Socinus being the second.
Laelius Socinus
The Italian religious refugees fleeing the Catholic Inquisition
formed centers in the cities where they fled, chiefly in the Grisons
and Basel before the death of Servetus, and afterwards in Geneva
and Zürich. Among the most important Italian refugees one
must list Lelio Sozini, better known in history by his Latinized
name Laelius Socinus. (He spelled his name in Italian with one
"z" unlike his more famous nephew, Fausto Sozzini (Socinus).
Laelius is the founder of the Antitrinitarian intellectual movement
that originated from his rational inquiry and doubt. He was born
in Siena on March 25, 1525.
Laelius Socinus was a pious man and made his faith the subject
of his research. He studied law at Padova as he was expected to
follow the family tradition. He believed that jurisprudence required
a divine base which he found in the revealed and written word
of God. Consequently he began to study the Bible with such ardor
that he learned Greek, Hebrew, and even Arabic. He quickly discovered
that the commonly received dogmas of the church were plainly opposed
to the biblical text and that the church's teaching was inconsistent
with reason. From these studies he began to doubt Catholicism
and considered divinity from a critical and juridical perspective.
At the age of 21, he abandoned his studies, left Siena and went
to Venice where Antitrinitarianism was already implanted. Tradition
connects his name with the legendary meeting of the reformers
that was to take place in Vicenza in 1546. He left Italy for the
Grisons, probably out of fear of the Inquisition, in 1547.
People who knew him had a very high opinion of him -- Melanchthon
was impressed with his talents and Bullinger[16] said that he
was worthy to advise a prince in handling difficult affairs.[17]
But being rich he devoted all of his time to studying theology.
He traveled continuously - Switzerland, France, England, the Low
Countries. In 1548 he arrived in Geneva where he met Calvin. He
was for a while in Zürich, where he stayed with Pelikan,
traveled to Basel where he stayed with Sebastian Münster,[18]
professor of Hebrew, and developed contacts with Myconius, Grynaeus,
Castellio,[19] and Curione. In 1548 we find him in England where
he met Vermigli, then a professor at Oxford, and Ochino, who arrived
there with Vermigli in 1547. Finally in 1549 he made Zürich
his second home where he was well received. Here he lodged with
Pelikan, professor of Hebrew, and interacted especially with Bullinger
who was to him like a father. Laelius easily gained friends due
to his courtly manners, profound culture, frank and attractive
character, irreproachable morals and deep piety.
He was, however, deeply skeptical in matters of religion always
looking for the fundamental reason for a doctrine before he could
accept it. He rarely expressed his own convictions but continued
his inquiry. The method of inquiry developed by Laelius is in
the form of letters asking for opinions of prominent reformers
rather than writing treatises.[20] He first addressed them to
Calvin whom he treated with admiration. In the first letter of
May 14, 1549, he asked about the rightfulness of a marriage of
a Protestant with a Catholic and of a Protestant attending Catholic
services.[21] Calvin responded on June 26, 1549, indicating that
a Christian should espouse only a woman "who would be his
companion in all the tasks of a pious life." The smallest
infraction of this rule makes the marriage vicious. So a Christian
commits a profanation espousing a Catholic woman. As to baptism
performed by Catholics, Calvin considered it not less effective.
"Though," Calvin wrote, "we refuse to the Papists
the name of the Church, still there are among them some remnants
of the Church."[22]
In another question Laelius posed, he brought all the arguments
against the resurrection of the body which could be gathered by
reason. Calvin was very careful not to get into a long discussion
of this topic, rather, he concluded: "As for me I accept
the testimony in such a way that I do not allow the thought that
could shake my faith."[23] Laelius, however, was not satisfied
with such an answer and declared that he did not "believe
in anything that opposes reason." He claimed it was difficult
not to give faith to the word of God, but at the same time "it
is not less difficult to be persuaded about the impossible future."
He insisted on a clear demonstration by Calvin of divine justice,
of the resurrection and transformation of the perishable body.
He wrote that he doubted and demanded precise answers which are
incompatible with religion and consequently he would never obtain
them. Calvin insisted on blind faith in the Scriptures (according
to his interpretation), emphasizing the will to believe. Calvin
claimed that he had his reason for believing, but he also knew
the limits of human intelligence and where the investigation must
stop. Laelius, on the contrary, was a doubting character, searching
for rational justification of all claims made by religion.
Not having received a satisfactory answer from Calvin, Laelius
left for Wittenberg where he spent the winter of 1550-1551 studying
at the university. Here he made acquaintance with many Polish
students, especially with a certain J. Maczynski, and became interested
in Poland. He briefly visited Kraków, at that time the
capital of the country, via Prague and Breslau. Kraków
was the center of Italian culture which was imported there by
Queen Bona Sforza, wife of the Polish king. Laelius found there
many Italian friends, among them Francesco Lismanini,[24] an Italian
Franciscan who was the confessor of the queen and whom he advised
to leave the Catholic church. Lismanini was to become later a
prominent figure in the Polish Calvinist church. After returning
to Switzerland he took the side of Bolsec in the Bolsec affair,
and accused Calvin of obscuring the doctrine of salvation by convoluted
discussions.[25] Bolsec got into trouble with Calvin and was imprisoned
for rejecting Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Laelius also
objected to the treatment given to Bolsec. Calvin, his feelings
hurt, first explained in his letter to Laelius of January 1, 1552,
that he would always follow his rule of wisdom: to acquiesce in
the simple doctrine of the word of God, and asked that Laelius
not bother him any more. Calvin regretted that Laelius allowed
himself to be corrupted by "pernicious fictions" and
warned him to cure his curiosity of investigating religious matters
before Calvin’s indulgence is exhausted and “before
he brings on himself big trouble.”[26] The threat was not
empty as the events of the Servetus trial the following year clearly
demonstrated.
Now Laelius turned his questioning to Bullinger asking him why
Jesus forbade his apostles to say that he was Christ? Bullinger
was as embarrassed as Calvin and gave similar advice. He found
Laelius "very curious" and able in pinpointing questions.
But Laelius only got evasive answers such as: "Without doubt
theology is theoretical but nevertheless it is above all practical."[27]
Again Laelius turned to another minister, Gualtero, a colleague
of Bullinger, asking him to define metanoia (repentance). Why
does one have to repent? Again, after a long explanation, Gualtero
advised him to respect the simplicity of the Scriptures rather
than the inextricable enigmas of human philosophy.[28] In his
travels Laelius met with Vergerio in Zürich, and Matteo Gribaldi
in Bologna. The day of Servetus's martyrdom he spent in Padova.
Naturally he blamed Calvin for the "fait accompli,"
but he continued his relations with people in Geneva and allowed
his views on the Trinity to be expressed. The Genevans now were
convinced that he collaborated with Castellio against Calvin.
Laelius began his inquiry and interrogation of others as a method
of learning, but soon it became a form to spread his own ideas
avoiding offending his adversary and always pretending to be a
disciple not a master. This technique could not succeed indefinitely.
After his last visit to Geneva, Calvin made a judgment about him
to Bullinger: "He is a man of insatiable curiosity"
but that he was afraid that he might be frenetically irritating.[29]
Bullinger replied that he tried to calm Laelius as much as he
could,[30] but Calvin was not reassured: "Up to what point
Laelius is calm in there [Basel], I do not know, but in the end
he will, as he did here [in Geneva], vomit the venom which he
nurtured. I have always smelled that his spirit was strange…."[31]
Accusations were now coming against Laelius from all sides.
Gratarolus, a physician in Basel, showed that he was in agreement
with the defenders of Servetus.[32] Vergerio talked about a conspiracy
of the Italians, Bullinger tried to talk to him like a father.
Laelius protested these accusations and handed to Bullinger his
confession of faith which he based on the symbol of the apostles.
This is a skillfully written document in which Laelius avoids
a direct statement of his belief. He states only that he honors
the three great creeds (i.e., Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism)
as far as he ought, and allows that the doctrine of the Trinity
existed for many centuries. He declares that he reviewed all the
doctrines for which he was accused and declares that he does not
want to profess any new doctrine, on the contrary, wants to be
firmly attached to the doctrines taught unanimously by all theologians.
He wants to stay close to the simplest truth of God, abandon discussions,
debates on opinions, thorny questions, and inextricable labyrinths.
Bullinger, upon reviewing this confession, proposed some corrections
and declared that he was satisfied. But the affair had no effect
on Laelius; he now became reserved and did not question the known
theologians. He was content to write down his doubts and communicate
his thoughts only to his Italian compatriots. Moreover, bad news
was arriving from Italy: Siena was losing its independence in
1551; his mother died in 1554, his father in 1555. His property
was confiscated by the Inquisition, and the rest of his relatives
were forced to flee or were imprisoned. He moved to Zürich
and lived in retreat, his modest resources not allowing him to
travel, but he remained on good terms with Calvin.[33]
In 1557 he again undertook travel to Poland first securing letters
of introduction from, among others, Calvin to Prince Radziwill
and to Jan Laski (John à Lasco), the latter, one of the
main reformers in Poland. He was received in Poland with honors
and undoubtedly met Biandrata[34] and Alciati who encouraged the
beginning of the Antitrinitarian movement in Poland. Upon returning
to Zürich through Italy he described the Reformation in Poland
in his letter to Calvin.[35] His nephew, Faustus Socinus, who
emigrated from Italy to Lyon in 1551, came to visit him several
times in Zürich. Laelius died on May 14, 1562 at the age
of 37. His nephew came to Zürich at this time informed about
the death of his uncle and inherited his uncle's manuscripts.
They inspired the nephew and gave direction for his own studies
which are well documented.[36] Eventually Faustus Socinus formed
the foundations of what subsequently developed into the mature
Socinian church in Poland. Laelius left very little published
material: only two short treatises are preserved under the name
Tractatus aliquot theologici containing the dissertations De Sacramentis
and De resurrectione corporum, published in Amsterdam in 1654.[37]
Italian investigator Cantimori published from a manuscript preserved
in the library of the University of Basel fragments of another
treatise Theses on the Son and The Divine Trinity (Theses de Filio
Dei et Trinitate).[38] He also established that the treatise Commentary
on John 1 (Brevis explicatio, in primum Joannis caput) published
in a collection of the writings authored by Polish and Transylvanian
Unitarians and edited by Biandrata and Dávid in 1568 as
Chapter 11, Book II of Two Books on the False and True Knowledge
of the One God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (De falsa et
vera Unius Dei Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti cognitione libri
duo) is authored by Laelius Socinus. It is also suggested that
the so-called “rhapsodies” mentioned by Socinian tradition
in Poland as written by Laelius were the notes of Laelius on various
topics, some of which were probably edited by Biandrata and published
as the Chapter 15 Book II of the publication mentioned above under
the title, Ambiguous Words in the Holy Scripture (Voces ambiguae,
quae passim in Scripturis reperiuntur).[39]
The influence of Laelius was much greater after his death than
during his lifetime. He created a new outlook on theology demanding
rational answers to theological questions. Such a position did
not allow for dogma; the Scripture alone was viewed as testimony
and not as a repository of invented dogmas. The role of the human
will and intellect was elevated to a higher level, man became
able to control his own moral decisions made on a rational basis.
Human spirit found its proper place and authority. The church
lost all of its supernaturalism and became a society of believers.
Sacraments were stripped of their magic powers and became ceremonies.
Some evaluated the concepts of Laelius as the doctrine of Servetus
but without his metaphysics; once Servetus's philosophical metaphysics,
which served as an instrument for radical negation of the Christian
dogmas, was suppressed, it developed with both Laelius and Faustus
into a new religion.[40] Laelius was the leader and one of the
founders of Antitrinitarianism. He sowed the seed of a new approach
to religion, to religious dogma, which was to flourish in the
Socinianism of his nephew and his school.
Life of Faustus Socinus
Faustus Socinus,[41] is considered today the main leader of
the Socinian church. He was born in Siena (Tuscany), Italy, on
December 5, 1539. He early lost his parents and very little is
known about his young years. It seems that he acquired mainly
a literary education in a Sienese school Accdemia degli Intronati.
He cherished during his life a love for literature and wrote poetry.[42]
We know that he expressed his profound antipathy toward the study
of law and practical matters. His uncle visited Siena between
1552-1553 and educated his nephew in religious matters. In 1561
Faustus left Italy for Lyon probably to acquire some experience
as a merchant where he spent two years and became acquainted with
the radical religious movement he encountered there and especially
with the thought of his uncle, Laelius Socinus. He later wrote
in a letter to his physician friend in Transylvania that he did
not have any other human teacher in his life except the writings
and notes of his uncle.[43] After the death of his uncle in 1562,
Faustus left Lyon for Zürich where he acquired the manuscripts
and notes of his uncle. He probably met here another Sienese,
Bernardino Ochino, and wrote his treatise Explicatio primae partis
primi capiti Evangelii Joannis (Commentary on the First Part of
the First Chapter of John’s Gospel). This treatise derived
from the analogical work written by his uncle. In 1563 Socinus
returned to Italy. On his way back he traveled through the Grisons,
an active center of the Reformation, and probably met there a
friend from his school years, Castelvetro, with whom they shared
hopes for changes in the church such as moral reform, emphasis
on spontaneity in congregations, individual freedom in the discussion
of religious matters, and individual profession of faith. These
hopes were associated with the expected opening of the third part
of the Trent council. He first came to Siena, then to Florence
where he joined the court of the Grand Duke Cosmo I of Tuscany,
as secretary of a court dignitary and a relative of the Duke,
Paolo Orsini. He remained in this position for twelve years and
during this time he composed poems and sonnets on various topics
such as politics, love, and morals. At the same time he kept close
contact with Italian heterodox emigrants in Switzerland, Poland,
and Transylvania. He considered the idea of retiring from the
court and devoting his life to studying subjects of interest to
him. His decision was prompted by the death of the Grand Duke
Cosmo I in 1574, when Socinus left Italy again never to return.
As he explained in the introduction to his work, De Jesu Christo
Servatore (On Jesus Christ the Savior), he left Italy in order
to be able to devote himself in a more comfortable and safe environment
to the study of the Scripture.
He went first to Basel, which was at that time a meeting place
for many religious reformers. The clergy in the city were more
tolerant under the leadership of Basilius Amerbach and Theodore
Zwinger. He spent three years there studying the Bible and especially
the problem of redemption. A great help to him were a few writings
and many notes left by his uncle. Here he wrote two treatises
which were for many years unpublished and circulated in manuscript
form: 1. the above mentioned De Jesu Christo Servatore (On Jesus
Christ the Savior) written in 1578 and printed eventually in Kraków
in 1594; 2. De statu primi hominis ante lapsum (On the Condition
of the First Man before His Fall), also written in 1578 and published,
only after his death, in 1610. The first of these works, On Jesus
Christ the Savior, is Socinus’s main treatise which comprises
the core of his doctrine. It was written as a result of his discussions
with Hieronimus Marliano, John Baptist Rota (later pastor of the
Italian church in Geneva), Manfred Balbanus, and Jacob Covet (evangelical
minister from Paris). The second treatise is a result of his correspondence
with Francesco Pucci from Zürich on the question of the immortality
of the human soul. Pucci was one of the Italian reformers who
left Italy and wandered across Europe.[44] Pucci claimed that
first man was immortal and lost his immortality due to the original
sin, but all men were redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ. Thus
he denied the validity of baptism for salvation and emphasized
the importance of good behavior for salvation. All men will be
saved regardless of their religion if they believe and obey God’s
moral commands. To this Socinus responded with his treatise.
In November 1578 Socinus traveled to Kolozsvár, Transylvania
(today Cluj in Romania), invited by Italian physician and religious
reformer, Giorgio Biandrata, in order to discuss the issue of
the dignity and power of Christ with the Calvinist minister there,
Francis Dávid. Francis Dávid came from a Catholic
family in Transylvania, studied in Wittenberg and after his return
from Germany accepted Lutheranism, became the superintendent of
the local church, and eventually switched to Calvinism. Through
the reading of Servetus and Erasmus, Dávid developed doubts
about the dogma of the Trinity. In 1562 Giorgio Biandrata came
here from Poland in order to cure the princess Isabella, widow
of prince John Zápolya; both Biandrata and Dávid
embarked on the propagation of Unitarianism. Enjoying the support
of prince John Sigismundus, they were able to induce the Diet
of 1571 to recognize Unitarianism as the third religion with equal
rights in Transylvania. Upon the death of the tolerant prince
in 1571, however, a Catholic, Stefan Báthory, became prince.
After being elected king in Poland, Stefan left the princely title
to his brother Christopher. The princes brought in Jesuits in
order to counteract the spread of antitrinitarianism and the situation
was changed now. Dávid lost his position as superintendent
of the Unitarian church and Biandrata lost his influence in the
court. In spite of the increasing danger, Dávid became
more radical and vocal in propagating his ideas, especially reviving
the old dispute on the non-adoration of Christ. Biandrata, fearing
persecution, intended to diminish the danger and not to alienate
further the opponents and pressed Dávid to end his practice
and change his views. He invited Socinus to a discussion with
Dávid and financed his travel. He asked both of them to
submit their opinions which were to be decided by the synod. Dávid’s
christology led him categorically deny any equality of the Father
and the Son. Socinus wrote his arguments in the form of a treatise
On the Invocation of Jesus Christ (De Jesu Christi invocatione
disputatio) which was published in Kraków in 1579.[45]
His main argument was that the invocation of Christ from which
his adoration derives is necessary as a cognition of his rule
and power over men that he obtained directly from God. Just as
the power given by God to man over nature constitutes his resemblance
to God, so the power given by God to Christ constitutes his divinity.
For this reason Christ should be adored, though otherwise he remains
a true man. For Socinus the non-adoration of Christ would be equivalent
to a return to Judaism. However, adoration is not expressly prohibited
or ordered by the Scripture. It is a practical matter due to human
weakness, a result of a necessity to pray for our comfort and
consolation.
As an unexpected result of this discussion, Dávid was accused
of blasphemy by Biandrata and some members of the church in April
1579, but the preliminary proceedings of the Diet in Torda were
postponed to June 1, 1579. In the meantime Socinus left Transylvania
for Poland in May, and in June 1579, the princely Diet at Gyulafehérvár
sentenced Dávid to life imprisonment as an innovator. There
are contradictory reports concerning the details of the affair
and chronology of the request for the opinion of the Polish Brethren.
Probably they were asked as early as November 1578. Nevertheless,
the preserved documents indicate that the letter from Biandrata
is dated June 17, 1579 and the reply from the Brethren August
27, 1579 with no mention of the trial of Dávid, but urging
Dávid to recant his views, recall his ministers, and to
settle the matter without involving the magistrate. Dávid
died in prison in Déva on November 15, 1579. Such an event
was not to be expected in sixteenth century Transylvania and produced
a reaction among the Transylvanian and Polish Unitarians. As a
result of such polemics, a collection of materials relating to
the Dávid-Biandrata-Socinus dispute, the reply of the Polish
ministers, the polemical refutation of the Polish ministers by
Palaeologus, and the denunciation of Biandrata’s ways by
the Transylvanians was published as Defensio Francisci Davidis
in negotio de non invocando Jesu Christo in precibus (Defense
of Francis Dávid Concerning the Question of Non-Invocation
of Jesus Christ in Prayers).[46] This collection was published
in several editions. One probably in Frankfurt am Mein in 1580,
of which there is no copy preserved, the second bearing an imprint
“In Aula Basiliensi 1581,” copies found in Cluj, and
the third, amplified, without date or place, probably printed
in 1582, copies found in the libraries of Cluj, Sibiu, Budapest,
and Oxford. The last two editions were most certainly printed
in Kraków in the Rodecki press.
On his way to Kolozsvár, Socinus briefly visited Kraków
and probably decided that Poland was a good place for him to settle
down because the next year he came to Poland where he stayed until
his death in 1604. He found here a large Italian colony of merchants
and artisans with anabaptist orientation who offered support to
their compatriot. Also he found here a religious movement congruent
to his own religious ideas and which was already prepared by his
uncle Laelius, by Giorgio Biandrata, Gianpaolo Alciati, and Valentino
Gentile. It was characterized by a general tendency to emphasize
the moral element over the doctrinal one and in the historical
part of Christianity, the rational and intellectual exegesis prevailed
that led to the humanization and moral elevation of the church.
In Kraków Socinus asked the minister Szymon Ronemberg for
admission to the Unitarian church. But because he refused to accept
the second baptism by immersion, he was not officially admitted.
He thought baptism should be required only for converts from religions
other than Christianity. Not discouraged by this rejection Socinus
remained associated with the church all his life, participated
in synods and eventually became its scholar and main theoretician.
Only at the end of his life was he admitted to the common celebration
of the Eucharist. He could thus declare that he never was a head
of any sect and cannot be called a “heresiarch.”
While in Kraków Socinus became involved in the disputes
and discussions within the church and defending the church against
its enemies.[47] His major role was in unification of various
tendencies in the movement: antitrinitarian, ditheistic, tritheistic;
a question of adoration and non-adoration of Christ; the problem
of negation of civil authority and negation of participation in
civil life; justification of faith against rationalistic and antireligious
views.
Soon Socinus was asked to respond to Jacobus Palaeologus, a former
Greek monk from Chios and religious refugee from Italy, concerning
the issue of social property and political authority.[48] This
was a part of the ongoing discussion among the Polish Brethren
on the use of the “sword” (ius gladii). The polish
Brethren were divided on this issue – some supported full
participation of true Christians in the political life of the
country and war, and others supported prohibiting active participation
in political life and military service, since this, by necessity
entailed the use of violence which was against the letter of the
gospel. The issue was especially acute in Poland, a country that
considered itself a “bulwark of Christianity.” In
the early years 1569-1570 after the Racovian community was founded,
some Brethren, influenced by the Moravian Anabaptists, and led
by Grzegorz Pawel (1525-1591) and others, advocated radical pacifism
and withdrawal from the political life of the country. They even
abolished the institution of ministers and introduced a radical
communist rule. However, Szymon Ronemberg, a senior in the congregation
in Kraków, after visiting Moravian Anabaptists, eradicated
this radicalism and reintroduced the governance of ministers.
On his request Palaeologus wrote in 1572 his treatise criticizing
the early Racovians and supporting the view that it was the duty
of a Christian to participate in the defense of his country and
protection of its laws. The main congregations of the Polish Brethren
rejected radical pacifism and actively participated in the political
life of the country. But in 1580 the manuscript of Palaeologus
was printed by Szymon Budny (1533-1593), a radical minister in
Kleck, Lithuania, without the approval of the congregation, and
the discussions among the Brethren were renewed again. Palaeologus
misrepresented the views of Racovian antitrinitarians who already
abandoned those radical social tendencies. Radical views could
represent danger to a country and they were used now to misrepresent
and distort the ideas of the Polish Brethren by their enemies
and as a pretext for the new king, Stefan Báthory, to repress
the church. On the special and explicit request from the Brethren,
Socinus agreed to write a clarification and to defend the position
of the Racovians. His reply was approved by the synod in Chmielnik
in 1581 and published anonymously. Socinus was a theoretician
who now faced a practical problem and need to reconcile the exigencies
of a concrete situation with an abstract theoretical speculation.
In the first part of his Response, Socinus reviews the doctrine
of the Racovians based on the Sermon on the Mount. The State has
no need of Christians for its military activity and has no right
to force Christian to participate. Evil is won only with spiritual
force. And there can be no war desired by God. But he approves
armed resistance against a government that would persecute the
religious opinions of one group of its citizens. At the same time
he condemned religious doctrines that would support armed destruction
of some forms of political power. Religious life is separate from
the political and must never use political or military means.
In the second part Socinus addresses the question of participating
in the function of the civil authority through the use of swearing
and tribunals. Socinus does not deny the authority the right to
exact swearing and to punish the malefactors. But at the same
time he contends that true Christians should not ask for justice
from the civil authority but should resolve their problems among
themselves. Socinus does not accept the argument that by not punishing
injustice one commits a graver injustice and points to the example
of indulgence of the pagans. Detachment from civil life for Socinus
meant only avoidance of interaction with the impious and nonreligious.
A Christian can practice in a civil office provided it does not
require the shedding of blood of another Christian. In the case
of a war in the defense of one’s homeland, Socinus claims
that prohibition against violence and bloodshed does not apply
to the government but to individual Christians. A Christian should
obey the authority as well as God, but in no case should one act
against an expressed precept of Christ. One can obey the order
to go to the war but must not kill. Similarly in the case of self-defense,
one can terrorize the enemy by all means but must not kill. Also,
a Christian can go to the court but only for the restitution of
his property, never for punishment. These are ambiguous views
and they were forced on Socinus by the actual political and social
situation in the country. Socinus’s true thought was a total
disinterest in the matters of the world, a rejection of the political
and social life. Being pressed, however, to defend the Racovians
against the attacks of the enemies and the king, he found recourse
in a detailed casuistry. Moreover, to avoid conflict with the
State he insisted on the supremacy of the civil authority and
the religious duties of the individuals. An attack against the
Unitarians came in the form of written theses from the so-called
Collegium Posnaniensis against the Unitarian doctrine to which
Socinus replied with his rebuttal.[49]
In 1580 he wrote in Kraków his fourth main treatise, De
Sacrae Scripturae auctoritate (On the Authority of the Holy Scripture)
originally in Italian, on the suggestion of Andrew Dudith, a Hungarian
dissident cleric and a former bishop of Pécs who found
refuge in Poland.[50]
With time Socinus drew the attention of the Catholic opposition
and was reported to King Báthory as a trouble maker. On
the advice from his friends he moved in March of 1583 to the village
of Pawlikowice (today Roznowa) near Kraków, which was owned
by Krzysztof Morsztyn, former student at Wittenberg and supporter
of the church of the Polish Brethren. Socinus married his host’s
daughter, Elizabeth, in 1586 with whom he had a daughter Agnes
in 1587. But he lost his wife in the same year.
With the death in 1587 of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Francis II,
Socinus’s protection by the Duke and his sister Isabella
Medici ceased and his family property was confiscated as owned
by a dangerous heretic. Thus Socinus lost his income and means
of livelihood, but with the death of the Duke he could now come
into the open with his doctrines as he once promised the Duke
that he would not publish in his own name anything opposing the
doctrine of the Catholic church.
He returned to Kraków in 1588 and, for the first time,
began to speak in public at the synod in Brzesc (in Lithuania)
on such issues as the death and offering of Christ, justification,
corruption of human nature, and invocation of Jesus Christ. This
was the year when Piotr Stoinski, Jr., son of Pierre Statorius
from Thionville, an immigrant from France in 1559, was nominated
minister of the congregation in Luslawice and then in Raków.
Socinus now gained more and more supporters for his ideas among
the Polish nobility, e.g., Hieronimus Moskorzowski, Stanislaus
and Christopher Lubieniecki, Elias Arciszewski, Piotr Stoinski,
Valentinus Schmaltz, Jan Volkel, Christopher Ostorodt, Matthew
Radecke, and others. His standing with the Polish Brethren became
more appreciated to such a degree that in 1596 he became the leader
of the church. Now he decided to publish a collection of his lectures,
which were probably delivered in Kraków during his stay
there between 1579-1583.
Due to the vicious attacks on the heterodox organized and promoted
by the Jesuits, toleration in Poland deteriorated significantly
and Socinus was subjected to such attacks as well. University
students organized by the Jesuits in 1598 invaded his apartment
while he was sick in bed. They dragged him half-clothed to the
city hall where his books, papers, and correspondence were burned.
Socinus himself was threatened with death unless he revoked his
doctrines. He naturally refused, and the assailants dragged him
to the Vistula River in order to drown him. Only the intervention
of a university professor Martin Wadowit, who happened to be there,
saved Socinus’s life.[51]
After this incident, Socinus, fearing for his life, left Kraków
for Luslawice, a small village near Tarnów, and property
of Abraham Blonski, which was a center of the Polish Brethren.
He would visit Kraków for synods and conferences. With
time the Unitarian church accepted the theoretical elaborations
of Socinus which became their official doctrine. The role Socinus
played in the Unitarian church may be compared to the role which
Thomas Aquinas played in the Catholic church. Polish Antitrinitarians,
imitating the Protestant reformers attempted to draw up the main
points of their religion in the form of a Catechism or Confession.
The first such work was a publication printed in Kraków
in 1574 by Alexander Turobinczyk and authored by minister George
Schomann, Catechism or Confession of Faith of the Congregation
Assembled in Poland, in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord Who
was Crucified and Raised from the Dead (Catechesis et Confessio
Fidei Coetus per Poloniam congregati in Nomine Jesu Christi, Domini
nostri crucifixi et resuscitati). Socinus attempted to write such
a work and left two unfinished treatises: Christianae religionis
brevissima institutio, per interrogationes et responsiones, quam
catechismus vulgò vocant; and Novum Fragmentum catechismi
prioris.[52] There are indications that he was asked by the Racovian
community in 1592 to write the catechism together with Piotr Stoinski,
Jr.[53] He could not, however, continue his work being busy with
other publications. He came back to it in 1603 though his death
prevented him from finishing the work. The catechism was finished
by Piotr Stoinski, Hieronimus Moskorzowski, and Jan Völkel
and published first in Polish in 1605. It was subsequently translated
into German by Valentinus Smalcius (Schmaltz) and published in
1608, and then in 1609 into Latin by Moskorzowski, published under
the title: Catechesis Ecclesiarum quae in Regno Poloniae et magna
Ducatu Lithuaniae, et aliis ad istud Regnum pertinentibus Provinciis,
affirmant, neminem alium, praeter Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
esse illum unum Deum Israelis: Hominem autem illum Jesum Nazarenum,
qui ex Virginenatus est, nec alium, praeter aut ante ipsum, Dei
Filium unigenitum, et agnoscunt et confitentur. Ante annos quatuor
Polinicè, nunc verò etiam Latinè edita. (Catechism
of the Churches, which in the Kingdom of Poland and in the great
Dukedom of Lithuania, and in other Provinces belonging to that
Kingdom, affirm that no other Being besides the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, is the one God of Israel; and acknowledge and
confess that the Man, Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of a Virgin,
and no other besides or before him, is the only–begotten
Son of God. Four years ago published in Polish, and at present
also published in Latin). To this publication was attached a dedication
to King James I of England. This work was reprinted in 1651 in
London and the following year it was burned on the sixth and eighth
of April by the order of the British Parliament. The first English
translation, probably executed by John Biddle, was published in
Amsterdam in 1652 which was entitled “The Racovian Catechisme”
and is known from that time by this name.
Socinus died in Luslawice on March 3, 1604. The funeral speech
was delivered by Piotr Stoinski, his faithful collaborator. He
was buried at the bank of the mountain river Dunajec and the simple
rectangular tomb stone placed on his tomb bore the inscription
in Italian: Chi semina virtù, raccoglie la fama, e vera
fama supera la morte (The one who sows virtue reaps fame and true
fame overcomes death). With time the river changed its course
a few hundred meters. Eventually his tombstone was located on
the side of a country road. In 1936 the international Unitarian
Community decided to erect a mausoleum to Socinus on a nearby
property to which the tombstone was transferred.
Socinus was a person of unusual wisdom and qualities of character,
humble and modest, benevolent toward others, always self-critical.
The main principle in life which Socinus followed was to nurture
the hope for immortality through morally good and just conduct.
Both Laelius and Faustus, according to Przypkowski, were characterized
by a profound faith for which they sacrificed earthly riches and
dignities, were exposed to injustice and insults. Their sacrifice
can be compared to that of the first Christian martyrs who lost
all earthly hopes, and contrasted with the later saints and heroes
of the Roman church who sacrificed riches and even lives to gain
recognition by their church.
Theology of Faustus Socinus
Faustus Socinus wrote his major theological works while staying
in Switzerland and even in Italy. His works written in Poland
were an elucidation of his theological doctrines. He spoke against:
the chiliastic doctrine which was accepted by many Christians
and Christian groups – Ebionites, Marcionites, Apolinarists,
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, many Anabaptists; the non-adoration
of Christ which was supported by Francis Dávid and Palaeologus;
the second baptism; the radical social doctrine of some Polish
supporters. The core of his doctrines was that which coincided
with the doctrines developed by the Polish Brethren: 1. Antitrinitarianism
or negation of the traditional concept of the Trinity; 2. Unitarianism
or negation of the preexistence of the Son (Jesus); 3. the concept
of redemption through moral acts; 4. the concept of radical dualism,
i.e., radical difference between God and man; 5. the status of
mortality of Adam before his fall; 6. the concept of religion
as a practice of ethical principles, i.e., the conviction that
moral commands such as the Sermon on the Mount must be practiced;
7. the conviction that man is able to develop the will to follow
Christ and thus achieve salvation. 8. the opposition to the mysticism
which required a special illumination to know the religious truth;
9. the conviction that man’s natural reason is sufficient
for understanding and interpretation of the Scripture; 10. Socinus
accepted an empirical position that all our knowledge comes from
sensual experience: Nam, ut dictum est a Philosopho, nihil est
in mente, sive in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu (For
as Philosopher said, nothing is in the mind, that is in the intellect,
which would not be first in the senses).[54]
The difference in theology between the Polish Brethren and Socinus
included Socinus’s rejection of anthropological pessimism,
which the Brethren inherited from the Lutheran-Calvinist tradition,
and rejection of the second baptism.
The Knowledge of God and Authority of the Scripture
For Socinus the only way to know God is through the Scripture
itself, that is from the revealed word of God. Thus he negated
any possibility of a natural knowledge of God either from an innate
idea or from the contemplation of nature. Religion is based on
revelation, it comes from faith and thus there is no natural religion:
religio res naturalis nequaquam est.[55] As evidence he quotes
the recent discoveries of new territories where there were no
religions. Moreover, this is implicitly affirmed by the Scripture,
and if it were not, religion would not have any value. The revelation
comes from the will of God in a historical process.[56]
Socinus argues that there could be four reasons why a Christian
might doubt the authenticity and absolute authority of the Scripture:
1. if the authors are not trusted; 2. if authors are not identified;
3. if one thinks or knows with certainty that the text is corrupted;
4. if there are contrary testimonies. Socinus eliminates all these
doubts arguing that the Apostles could not contradict the precepts
of Christian truth, and that Christians must believe unconditionally
in the Sacred Scripture by adhering to the text, that is to its
philological interpretation. For those professing other religions
one has to demonstrate the preeminence of Christianity. And this
he attempts to do through his understanding of religion: namely,
that religion for Socinus is essentially moralistic and consists
of promises and precepts. According to Socinus, one finds in Christianity
the most splendid and greatest promises as well as the best precepts.
If the truth of a religion were indisputable, there would be no
difference between the good ones and the bad ones and there would
be no reason for rewarding or punishing. On God’s part,
religion is revelation; on man’s part, religion is faith
and conviction that one has to follow the divine precepts and
that the promises will be fulfilled.[57]
Antitrinitarian Christology
In his first treatise written in 1562, Explicatio primae partis
primi capitis Evangelii Joannis,[58] Socinus gives a different
interpretation from the traditional words of John (John 1:1-3)
that negates the Trinitarian dogma. Traditionally, this chapter
was interpreted on the basis of Greek philosophy and religion
assuming the existence of a second person, the Son of God or Word
or Logos, as the cosmic entity which preexisted with God the Father
and was united with him by the same substance. At a certain time
the Son of God became “flesh,” that is a human being,
Jesus, while still being God.
Socinus’s argument against such interpretation rests on
its inconsistency with other scriptural passages. In the interpretation
of both Laelius and Faustus the “beginning” does not
refer to the beginning of things as in Genesis, but must be understood
as the beginning of Jesus’s teaching. The view that the
Word (Logos) existed before time as a cosmic being has been accepted
in traditional theology under the influence of Platonic philosophy
and is not derived from the Gospels. In the Gospels the word Logos
(Word) means the historical Jesus, the man, the son of Mary who
was crucified and not an eternal cosmic Logos. John, by calling
him Word (Logos), meant that Jesus was proclaiming the word of
God, i.e., God’s will. Laelius and Faustus also state that
it is equally nonsensical to accept the literal meaning of the
expression “and the Word was God.” Socinus emphasizes
that in the Scripture the term God was frequently used in a metaphorical
meaning to stress the rank and importance of the person so called.
The Scripture calls angels, rulers, and judges “gods”
and the term “God” in John 1 should be understood
in this way. John is using this term for Jesus Christ not in the
literal sense as equal to God, but to stress the dignity of Jesus
who had a mission to build a new world, since “all things
were made by him.” Thus, Jesus was a man, though foreseen
in God’s plans, was born at a given historical time and
given a mission. Because of this he rightfully deserves adoration.
Equally untrue is the contention that Christ atoned for human
sins. Socinus discussed this question in his later writings. The
dogma of atonement and satisfaction is, according to Socinus,
contrary to reason and a sense of justice. The true role of Jesus
was to demonstrate to people how to be saved. By dying on the
cross Jesus proved that no sacrifice should prevent people from
fulfilling God’s commands. The resurrection confirmed the
truthfulness of Jesus’ teachings. Thus the resurrection
is the central feature of his message. He confirmed by this his
message and asserted that if people follow his teaching they would
be raised from the dead. And in this sense only Christ can be
called Savior. After his resurrection Christ was given by God
full power over the world and people and in this sense again he
can be called God.
The true understanding of the scriptural expression “the
Son of God” applied to Jesus is not that he was born by
the power of the Holy Spirit, but because of his “likeness”
to the Father consisting in three functions, knowledge, immortality,
and power:[59] 1. Jesus knew human minds and hearts as no other
prophet or angel; 2. Jesus was the only and the first man to rise
to immortality. Though the Scripture mentions Enoch and Elijah
who were taken up to heaven, they were not raised from the dead
and there is no indication that they were made immortal; 3. Jesus
has power over human minds and bodies. He also commands good and
bad spirits and judges men and rewards them according to their
merits or sins with eternal life or punishment. But Jesus’
power extends only over the people belonging to the church. And
the church is understood as the people who have any kind of knowledge
about Jesus, even those who deny him.
The expression “Holy Spirit” does not denote the
third person of one God. The Holy Spirit is not a person or a
cosmic being, it is a power of God and effectiveness of his actions.
This power has the property of sanctifying people.[60]
The Doctrine of Justification
The doctrine of justification as taught by the Reformers was
based on the doctrine of original sin developed by Augustine and
viewed man in a pessimistic perspective, especially in the doctrine
propounded by Calvin. Man was not capable of any act which would
have a justifying value in the eyes of God. They preached that
salvation was possible only because Christ by his death on the
cross atoned for human sins by placating the anger of God. To
be saved man must have a strong faith in the redeeming role of
Christ’s martyrdom. Faith, however, is not a personal merit
of man, but it is an unmerited gift of God dependent on God’s
grace and only to those who are selected arbitrarily. Thus free
will is a fiction. And without the grace of God men are irrevocably
doomed, only the elect ones receive the grace of God without any
merit on their part.
Socinus’s doctrine on justification was quite different.
There is no original sin as described in the traditional Catholic
and Protestant theology.[61] Adam’s transgression burdens
Adam alone. Man was not immortal but by nature was mortal and
his nature was the same as today. His nature was simple and inexperienced,
without any knowledge and any special intelligence. Also, he was
not in possession of an original righteousness. Man was created
free of any moral determinism, but only with a free will. The
evil in the world is a fact from which man should draw conclusions
with respect to his moral conduct. Man can only win immortality
by his life in Christian faith. Outside the Christian doctrine
there is no possibility of salvation. If there is a spark of revelation
in every religion, the true and complete revelation is the one
given by God through Christ. There is no reason to believe that
the sin of one man destroyed the ability to follow justice in
all men. If that ability is not perfect, it is because of acquiring
a habit of wrong actions. Equally absurd is the doctrine of predestination,
especially as propounded by Calvin, according to which God destined
some to eternal life in glory, while others are predestined to
eternal punishment. Also, Socinus considered absurd the view of
Augustine who considered evil a product of the human free will,
but that the achievement of good is conditioned by receiving the
undeserved grace from God. Christ saved us, however, by announcing
to us the divine will and teaching us what we are to do in order
to obtain eternal life and overcome death. He showed by the example
of his life and his death the way in which we can obey God’s
will and how we can follow his precepts; and he assured us of
the truthfulness of his message by his miracles.[62]
There were two objections to Socinus’s views: 1. This
doctrine did not explain divine justice requiring a punishment
for sins; 2. Man as a sinful creature is unable not only to obey
the divine commandments, but even less so, to imitate Christ.
Socinus responded with a concept of divine justice totally different
from the Catholic tradition so pictorially depicted by Dante and
Calvin’s doctrine. Divine justice is not distinct from divine
mercy – his justice is his mercy. God as the creator of
justice and justice itself cannot be judged according to the human
idea of justice. One cannot talk about God’s anger and his
hostility toward men. Divine justice does not require any expiation
or a sacred victim. Still God does not leave iniquity unpunished,
but this is not due to sins and errors, but to obstinate malice
in some men. And such punishment is not a result of divine justice
but of free divine will.[63]
As to the second objection, Socinus responded that man is not
able to follow Christ and live without sin in the same measure
as Christ did, but what is required is that man put himself in
the same path and follow him in the same quality of virtue. This
view derived from the accentuation of the humanity of Christ and
the moral dignity of man. Socinus was aware that human imperfection
will not allow us to imitate Christ. But it is sufficient to have
faith in Christ, that is, to believe in his promise and obey his
precepts. This was an active faith, a unity of faith and works,
which remained in accordance with the postulates of humanism.
From this Socinus derived a new concept of Christian religion
as a celestial doctrine which teaches men a true way to achieve
eternal life.[64] It is experienced from the Scripture, interpreted
by reason, and is implemented in practice by obeying the evangelical
precepts. With this is related the problem of free will. Free
will survived Adam’s fall. The idea that man is deprived
of free will is absurd, because then there would be no religion
since it is nothing else but an effort to obey God.[65]
Socinus now poses a general question: is it possible to assert
that there is free human will believing that from the beginning
of time God knew all the human deeds and thoughts even before
coming into this world? The answer that Socinus gives is that
divine foreknowledge is incompatible with human free will: 1.
Our justification by God is not the result of the sanctity of
our lives or of our innocence (causa impulsiva and causa effectiva)
(impulsive cause and effective cause).[66] It is not so because
before time began God decided to save people on condition that
they believe in Christ; 2. Faith in Christ is an unmerited gift
of God because no one given the opportunity to believe in Christ
deserves that gift.[67] At first this seems to be in agreement
with the Reformers, but closer analysis shows that it is not;
3. Belief in Christ is given not to people arbitrarily selected
but to all people to whom the gospel is taught;[68] 4. Faith which
justifies us does not consist in asserting a conviction that the
words of Christ are true. Such a faith may be possessed by those
who are disobedient to God. Justifying faith consists not only
in the confidence that God will fulfill the promise of eternal
life made through Jesus Christ, but it also necessarily involves
obedience to God’s commands. This obedience is not a result
of faith. This justifying faith is obedience to God;[69] 5. The
belief that Christ’s promises will be fulfilled arises in
us from our free will, because the decision to believe is ours.[70]
The Origin of Faith
As to how faith arises, Socinus suggests a constant struggle
between reason and inclination. Reason counsels us to follow justice
even to our disadvantage, while inclination leads us to whatever
is most advantageous. Thus it depends on our free will whether
we act justly even to our disadvantage or whether we do what is
to our immediate profit even though we understand we should not
act that way. The one who decides to follow the counsel of reason
is easily led to believe that God who rewards the just and punishes
wrongdoers exists. One who follows his inclinations cannot reach
this conviction or can only do so with difficulty because such
a conviction is inconvenient for his designs. Thus the cause and
foundation for faith is man’s desire and tendency to do
what is right and to avoid what is unjust.[71]
The grace that God gives to people is the teachings of Christ
which contain, in addition to strict moral commandments, the promises
of the reward most desired by people, namely, an eternal life
of happiness.
The process of the emergence of faith is presented by Socinus
in entirely naturalistic terms without supernatural intervention.
Such an intervention would destroy completely human merit and
would make salvation dependent on the Creator’s whim. This
intervention nevertheless appears at a certain stage. But according
to Socinus this supernatural assistance does not reduce the degree
of personal responsibility of man.
The commandments of the New Testament to imitate Christ are
just and consonant with reason. But their fulfillment requires
such a degree of heroism and self denial that it seems that they
overreach the natural capacities of man. The hope for a reward
of eternal life which will be achieved by obedience may not be
enough to persist in the fulfillment of the commandments. Thus
some certitude is needed in order for hope to persist and it is
created in human hearts by the power of God’s spirit. This
grace is granted to those who not only accept the reward as true
but also are prepared to reject wickedness and to be wholly obedient
to the gospel’s commands and persist in pious endeavor.[72]
Negation of Divine Foreknowledge
Socinus discussed the negation of divine foreknowledge in his
work Praelectiones theologicae[73] while he considered the doctrine
of predestination.[74] The doctrine that God has the unerring
knowledge of all future contingencies, i.e., those things that
could happen but may not happen, obviously, because of future
human acts, is based, according to Socinus, on three arguments:
1. The concept that if divine nature immanently contains the notion
of the unerring foreknowledge, it would be impious to think otherwise;
2. That it is scarcely probable that things would be different,
although they could be different if that were God’s will;
3. That it is supported by the Scripture.
Those who accept divine foreknowledge claim that free will is
incompatible with divine prescience. It follows that God is unable
to grant free will to man. This opinion is impious and contradictory
to what they say themselves that the first man had a free will
before his fall (Socinus refers to Calvin’s Institutiones
I. cap. XV.8). Socinus presents two reasons the adversaries could
present in support of the first argument: 1. That for God everything
that exists is present because he himself is beyond time and exists
in eternity where nothing is earlier or later. This reasoning,
however, cannot be accepted, since time whatever theologians say,
has a past and future. Time did not begin with the creation of
the world, only the meaning of time began with the creation of
the sun and stars. Therefore, even for God past, present, and
future exist. Consequently God knows things past, present, and
future as such. Socinus refers here to the notion of absolute
time as did Gassendi later in the seventeenth century and Newton
after him; 2. It can be said that God is omniscient, that is that
if he should not know something, he would not be omniscient. But
even this argument is not convincing, because God knows everything,
but only those things that are capable of being known. Future
contingencies are not in this category.
To disprove the second argument Socinus puts it in a different
form – partisans of divine foreknowledge claim that divine
foreknowledge is incompatible with free will. Socinus says, we
claim the same. The question, however, arises, which is more probable:
that God refuses free will to man to preserve divine foreknowledge,
or that he granted free will and renounced foreknowledge?
If we accept that there is no free will in man, there results
the absurd situation that God is the cause of human sins. There
is nothing absurd, however, in maintaining that not all is known
to God by unerring foreknowledge. Is it not enough that God by
his unlimited power, wisdom, and knowledge, governs and directs
everything, so that God will always direct whatever man does to
his glory? Conversely. acceptance of the thesis of foreknowledge
makes God a passive witness of all events, removing him from constant
care of the people, and the immediate direction of the affairs
of the world.
Essential Truth, Divine Justice
Socinus stresses obedience to the commandments of the gospel
and by doing this he somewhat devalues religious dogmas and religious
knowledge. But the devaluation is not complete, because without
some knowledge of religion there is no belief in Christ, and belief
in Christ, however it may be understood, is a condition of salvation:
1. Socinus is convinced that only belief in a small number of
religious dogmas, the so-called “essential truths”
is required for salvation. Only acts contrary to the gospel’s
message make salvation impossible. Essential truths are generally
those without which faith in Christ and the fulfillment of his
promises are impossible.[75] Those truths are clear and commonly
understood. Even views totally erroneous and noxious, such as
the belief in the Trinity and in predestination do not rule out
salvation, though they make it difficult. These views Socinus
presented during his theological seminars presented in Raków
in 1601-1602. In the same lectures Socinus formulated his views
concerning hell.[76] He was of the opinion that expressions such
as “punishment of hell,” “eternal condemnation,”
and “eternal suffering” are metaphors Jesus intentionally
used in order to adapt his doctrine to the mode of thinking of
those whom he taught. It must be assumed that not all shall rise
on the day of the last judgment. The thesis that the impious shall
be left to their fate that is, eternal death, nonexistence, and
the obedient and just shall be called to eternal glory, can be
allowed on the following grounds: 1. justice requires that the
wicked be punished; 2. people knowing that they will not suffer
after death shall persist in their sins.
The first argument Socinus justifies thus: It seems unjust that
the wicked should not be punished, it would be even more unjust
– and this would be a greater injustice if God who made
man mortal, should then make him immortal in order to make him
suffer. It is more acceptable that the impious should rise in
the day of judgment, see the glory of God, and then die forever.
The latter view, however, seems to Socinus less likely than the
previous one, i.e., that their fate is simply nonexistence.
The second argument Socinus dealt with is: They are in error
who think that people may be forced to reform and repent by the
threat of hell. It is possible that such a threat would be a deterrent
if punishments were visible and could be tested visually. He who
will not reform because of a reward as magnificent as eternal
life, offers little hope of being restrained by the fear of punishment.
He who will not believe in a reward will not believe in a punishment.
Socinus’s Rationalism
A. Socinus represented a strict empiricism. He commented: 1.
Men have no innate or natural idea of God though such a view is
widely accepted. This view originated from the widely spread “news”
about God which was transmitted from generation to generation.
The news arose in turn from the original revelation of God. And
those people who did not receive the “news” cannot
even guess the existence of God. 2. Also there is no possibility
of knowing God through the study of nature.[77] A disciple of
Socinus, Christopher Ostorodt, succinctly formulated these assertions
in a work published in 1625 in Raków:
The fact that people have some knowledge of God comes neither
from their nature nor from the contemplation of the works of creation.
It comes from the “news” about God: God revealed himself
to men from the beginning. Those who did not receive the “news”
have no idea about any deity as the conviction of this is provided
by examples of some peoples in the New Indies … Thus man
cannot know anything about God and his will except what he himself
revealed, that is in the external manner.[78]
3. The knowledge of God does not come from any form of inner
illumination or inspiration. Whatever is in the mind or intellect,
comes from empirical perception. Nam, ut dictum est a Philosopho,
nihil est in mente, sive intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in
sensu.[79] 4. Thus, the only source of knowledge about God can
come from transcendental revelation. Nam cum religio res naturalis
nequaqum sit …, sed si vera est, patefactio est quaedam
Divina (Now then, because religion is by no means a natural thing
..., but if it is true then revelation should be something divine).[80]
This applies to Christ as well, who as a human being was elevated
to divine dignity had to acquire the knowledge about God through
a manner consistent with his human nature. The way Socinus visualized
this was that Christ before he started his mission remained for
some time in heaven as is indicated by John 13:3.
B. The role of reason. Socinus deduced from this that if man
cannot obtain knowledge of God by natural means but only through
divine revelation, then human minds not only may grasp it and
interpret it independently, but it is essential that they should,
since otherwise revelation would be unnecessary. Nam ubi divina
patefactio adest, non solum humana ratio res divinas percipere
potest, sed ut percipiat necesse est; alioqui frustra plane esset
patefactio illa (For wherever there is present divine revelation
not only is human reason able to apprehend divine things, but
it is necessary that it should; otherwise, clearly, divine revelation
would be in vain).[81] To be understandable, revelation must be
given in a form and expressed in categories accessible to the
human mind. Revelation must follow the principles of reason. If
a religious doctrine contains teachings contrary to reason, this
doctrine is untrue in those points and contrary to reason. Such
untrue views and teachings must be absolutely rejected. But Socinus
was not yet a rationalist, rather, he understood reason as common
sense and not as critical reason. However, in this way Socinus
rejected the authorities previously responsible for the tenets
of religion – the church and tradition. To Socinus, there
is on earth no greater authority for man than his own reason.
Socinus stressed that revelation must be assessed by human reason.[82]
C. Verification of divine revelation. The question then arises
how do we know that Scripture, which allegedly contains the words
of God, was divine revelation, since we cannot assess it either
by natural reason or by contemplating nature?
Catholicism appeals to the primary testimony of the church,
whose authority is a guarantee of the authority of God’s
word, a position first expressed by Augustine: Ego Evangelio non
crederem nisi me commoveret auctoritas Ecclesiae (I would not
believe in the Gospel if it were not for the authority of the
Church). Protestantism points to the “internal testimony
of the Holy Spirit” (testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum).
Socinus rejected both the authority of the church and the supernatural
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He taught what might be called
today a naturalistic solution to the question of authority. Socinus
distinguished: 1. That there are people who, though dubious of
the authority of Scripture, agree that the Christian religion
is true. He thinks it is easy to prove for them the authenticity
of revelation. It is enough to refer to his philosophical argument
given in De Sacrae Scripturae auctoritate; 2. There are also those
who reject this opinion and either doubt that it is the true religion,
or simply think it is false.
The second variant involves two classes of people: a. Those
who think that there is, or that there may exist, a true religion.
In this group may be non-Christians and for these who believe
that there is a true religion, he suggests a comparison of Christianity
with other religions, which should prove its superiority and excellence;
b. Those who think that there is no true religion at all. This
group encompasses atheists. For those who do not recognize any
religion or reject the belief in God, Socinus counsels the use
of rational arguments but concludes that there are no arguments
that would prove, without doubt, that God exists and that Christianity
is a true religion.
Socinus proposes the following arguments for the existence of
God and his revelation: a. Argument from events demanding free
will.
Socinus postulated the existence of God from free will though
he did not give any specific argumentation. Quamquam vero minime
dubitamus, quin hoc (i.e, the existence of God) haud magna negotio
effici queat, maxime si rationes ducantur non tam ex natura ejusque
necessariis effectis, quam ex liberis voluntariisque eventibus
extra necessarium naturae ordinum, qui in orbe terrarum conspecti
sunt et quotidie conspiciuntur (We have, however, little doubt
that this argument may not produce great difficulty, particularly
if reason is led not so much by nature and its necessary effects
as by free and voluntary events remaining beyond the necessary
order of nature and which are daily observed on the earthly globe).[83]
The basis for this argument is an assertion about absolute human
free will. Socinus rejected the concept of divine foreknowledge
(praescientia divina). God does not know the future actions of
man. Otherwise there would be no free will and there would be
no possibility of either rewarding the righteous ones or punishing
the wicked since this requires a conscious choice between good
and evil. The free will of man is a part of divine providence
in governing the world and maintaining harmony.[84] But Socinus
admits that such an argument may work only for someone who already
knows about the existence of God and seeks some verification.
b. Historical argument.
The previous argument is inconsequential, therefore Socinus postulates
another one he considered superior. First one has to prove through
historical documents that Jesus existed, then that he died on
the cross, and finally that he made miracles. The rest of arguments
now follow his tractate De Sacrae Scripturae auctoritate.
c. Argument from the moral sense.
But Socinus was fully aware that none of these arguments for
proofs of existence of God are convincing: “It is certain
that whoever considers religion as a human invention and ridicules
it, thinking that it is vain to expect God’s reward for
just deeds and punishment for wicked deeds, will also ridicule
miracles reducing them to natural causes.”[85] What therefore
is the reason why some believe in God and revelation while others
do not, if rational arguments are not decisive? Christian churches
explain it by postulating the action of God’s grace. Socinus
rejected this explanation and tried to solve the problem by postulating
that the recognition of God’s existence and of the true
nature of Christian religion depends in the last resort on a moral
position. Socinus asserted that every man has the capacity to
differentiate between good and evil or at least to recognize the
importance of following righteousness. And this is, according
to Socinus, a form of the inner word of God.[86] The reason in
us pushes us towards the choice of righteousness, but impulse
pushes us towards what is our immediate desire. Thus our choice
depends on free will and those who follow righteousness are inclined
to accept the existence of a divine power controlling the world.[87]
Thus Socinus equated religion and belief with morality. Religion
is not a matter of reason but of faith. The will and moral attitude
decide on their acceptance. Religion is not self-evident, if it
were, there would be no difference between good and evil. In such
a case both the evil and the righteous would be convinced about
the truthfulness of religion and there would be no possibility
of committing evil or good and hence of punishing or rewarding.
The choice between accepting religion and rejecting religion depends
on the will and moral position and not on rational arguments.
The reward of immortality promised by the Gospels is so desirable
that there is no one who would not do even more than required
by Christ’s commands, should it be certain that the promises
of Christ are true. Because reward is not so certain, wicked people,
or those who do not love virtue for itself, prefer not to believe
in its reality and possibility. Those who have virtue easily believe
in God. Thus the fact that religious truths are not indisputable
makes it possible to distinguish between the wicked and the just.[88]
Impact on the Future Development
Socinus’s doctrine became in the beginning of the seventeenth
century the official doctrine of the church of the Polish Brethren
– called Socinians. In the generation that followed Socinianism
underwent modifications. More stress was put on the rational elements
in the doctrine; it was emphasized that Socinianism was a “rational
religion.” The view of Socinus that there was no natural
religion was abandoned – it was thought that this thesis
devalued the role and function of reason. From the end of the
second decade of the seventeenth century Socinians were proclaiming
the opposite view. Later as attacks on Socinianism in Poland and
in Western Europe grew and as both Catholics and Protestants branded
Socinianism the most dangerous of heresies, Socinian theologians
began to modify other aspects of the doctrine, probably to make
it less shocking and more acceptable to Christian opinion.
In the second half of the seventeenth century the view of the
Socinians on Jesus and the atonement was given a more moderate
form.
In 1658 the Diet of the Commonwealth of Poland introduced a
resolution prohibiting Antitrinitarianism under penalty of death.
They had to convert or to leave within three year’s time.
This was an act of fanaticism, but Poland still was officially
tolerant toward other Protestant churches after this resolution.
In 1648 the English parliament passed the ordinance penalizing
Antitrinitarianism by death (the Draconian Ordinance). In 1658
a resolution of the Diet of the Commonwealth brought an end to
the Antirtinitarian Church in Poland. The majority of the Socinians
accepted Catholicism, a minority emigrated, mostly to Transylvania.
The intellectual elite settled in Holland where they found support
among sympathizers, mostly Remonstrants. There they continued
their publishing activities – the result of which was the
publication in Amsterdam between 1665 and 1668 of a monumental
work in several folio volumes Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum quos
Unitarios Vocant (The Library of the Polish Brethren Called Unitarians).
The Bibliotheca included writings of some leading theoreticians
and theologians of the Socinian movement beginning with the complete
works of Socinus.
The vigorous propaganda conducted by the Polish Brethren and
their sympathizers in Western Europe during the seventeenth century
which continued even after their exile from Poland, exerted a
strong effect, especially in Holland and Great Britain. In addition,
the harsh anti-Socinian edicts and the numerous theological tracts
branding this doctrine as the most pernicious of the heresies
excited curiosity and interest about the sect. Socinianism once
expelled from Poland was never reborn as a large church and its
doctrines were not accepted in their entirety. However, many of
the ideas that it proclaimed were accepted by sympathizers among
independent theologians of liberal tendencies, ideas such as the
following:
§ the conception that religion should follow the principles
of reason;
§ the Unitarian concept of God;
§ the irenic idea linked to the doctrine of essential truth;
§ the view that salvation is possible in all Christian churches
on condition of fulfillment of the moral commandment of the gospel;
§ the principle of religious tolerance and church-state
separation to which Socinus’s successors, beginning with
John Crell, devoted a great deal of attention.[89]
These and similar ideas were shared by thinkers in religious
centers, and orthodox theologians attributed the main source of
all these ideas to Socinianism. Hence at the end of the seventeenth
and in the course of the eighteenth century, they branded as Socinianism
all religious opinions that gravitated toward liberal and rationalistic
opinions. On the other hand, Socinianism (so compromising to orthodox
theologians) had a positive effect on the ideologists of the Enlightenment.
It was stressed that Socinian doctrine had embraced concepts of
great worth for a rationalist and humanistic tradition. Therefore,
almost all leading representatives of the intellectual movement
who consciously and proudly proclaimed themselves to be transmitters
of that tradition considered Socinianism to be the foreground
of the Enlightenment.
The rationality of Socinus was very limited. It is not autonomic
as in every religious system assuming the existence of divine
revelation and accepting it as a basis for its faith. Nevertheless
it was a step forward compared with the “rationality”
of Thomas Aquinas or with orthodox Protestantism. It emancipated
reason from the domination of the authorities of the church institution
and tradition. Reason in the Socinian system became the only judge
deciding on the veracity of the “divine word.” In
the system of Thomas Aquinas every religious speculation had to
be subjected to the decisive authority of the institution and
tradition of the church. Socinus rejected this doctrine as well
as the attitude of heterodox spiritualistic and mystical systems
which also rejected the authority of the church. In that sense
early Socinianism was a precursor of the later rational doctrines
of the next generation of Socinians and of the Enlightenment.[90]
* * *
The author wishes to express his thanks and gratitude to Claire
S. Allen for reading the manuscript and her comments.
Notes and Bibliography
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Delio Cantimori, Eretici italiani del Cinquecento. Ricerche
storiche. (Firenze: Sansoni, 1967).
[2] Williams, George Huntston, Radical Reformation. (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1962).
[3] Goertz, Hans-Jürgen, “Thomas Müntzer. Revolutionary
in a Mystical Spirit.” p. 43. In Goertz, Hans-Jürgen,
ed., Klaassen, Walter, Profiles of Radical Reformers. Biographical
Sketches from Thomas Müntzer to Paracelsus. (Kitchener, Ontario,
Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1982).
[4] Marian Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (1511-1553) –
The Turning Point in the Struggle for Freedom of Conscience, (Lewiston,
N.Y., Queenston, Ont., Lampeter, UK: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997).
[5] Harnack, Adolf von, Lehrbuch des Dogmengeschichte, (Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1890). T. III, pp. 658 ff.
[6] Thomas Rees, Historical Introduction in The Racovian Catechism
translated from the Latin by Thomas Rees, London, 1818. reprinted
by Christian Educational Services, Indianapolis, IN., 1994. V.
[7] Christopher Sandius, Bibliotheca antitrinitariorum, (Freistadii,
1684), p. 16, quoted by Thomas Rees, Historical Introduction in
op. cit., pp. V-VI.
[8] Quoted by Packull, Werner, O., “Hans Denck. Fugitive
from Dogmatism.” In Goertz, H.-J., ed. op. cit., p. 68.
[9] Harnack, A., op. cit., p. 663.
[10] Doumergue, É., Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses
de son temps. (Lausanne, Paris: 1899-1927); Slatkine Reprints:
Genève, 1969). Vol. VI, p. 450.
[11] Frederic C. Church, The Italian Reformers 1534-1564. (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1932).
[12] Bernardino Ochino (1487-1565) originally from Siena, was
a vicar general of the Capuchin order 1539-1541. To prevent his
investigation by the Inquisition he fled Italy to Switzerland
and broke with the Catholic church. He was famous for his inspiring
sermons. He moved in Europe from city to city (Zurich, Geneva,
Basel, Augsburg, London). He had to leave England when Mary Tudor
ascended the throne, and found refuge in Poland. But here he could
not stay for long because of the edict of Parczów in 1564
which expelled foreign religious reformers. He went to Moravia
where he died shortly after.
[13] Peter Martyr Vermigli (1500-1562) was accused of heresy
in his native Italy and was forced to flee. He taught the Old
Testament in Strassbourg, Oxford and Zurich.
[14] Biographical data come from a monograph by Samuel Przypkowski,
Fausti Socini vita descripta ab Equite Polono, written in 1631,
first published in 1634 (no place indicated). There were further
editions in 1636, 1663, and in 1664. It also was translated into
German (1637), English (probably by John Biddle, 1653), and Flemish
(1664). It is included in the collection Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum
(BFP), edited by Andreas Wiszowaty (Irenopoli =Amsterdam, 1656-1668),
Vol. 1, Fausti Socini Senensis Opera Omnia, Vita Authoris (Fausti
Socini) conscripta ab Equite Polono. The Polish translation is
included in the publication, Faust Socyn, Listy (Letters), ed.,
Ludwik Chmaj, translators Tadeusz Bienkowski, Irmina Lichonska,
Zdana Matuszewiczowa, Walerian Preisner, (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnicto
Naukowe, 1959), Vol. 1, pp. 11-30.
[15] Genealogy of the Socinus Family
Mariano Socinus, senior (1397-1467)
|
Paolo Salvetti Alexander Socinus, senior; Bartholomew Socinus
| |
Camilla Salvetti ----- Mariano Socinus, junior (1482-1556)
|
Alexander Socinus junior (1509-1541); Lelio (1525-1562)
Pandolfo Petrucci
|
Borghese Petrucci ----- Victoria Piccolomini
|
Alexander Socinus, junior ----- Agnes Petrucci
|
Faustus Socinus ----- Elizabeth Morsztyn
|
Agnes ---- Stanislaus Wiszowaty
(d. 1654) (d.1643 murdered by bandits)
|
Andreas, Theodor
| |
Benedict, Andreas Stanislaus, Boguslaw two daughters
they married
Przypkowski and Schlichtyng
[16] Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) a Swiss theologian and the
head of the church in Zurich from 1531. He was the author of the
second Helvetian confession published in 1562.
[17] Melanchthoni, Philippi, Opera, (ed. Bretschneider) p. 382
[18] Sebastian Munster (1489-1552), a Franciscan monk and reformer,
professor of theology in Heidelberg (1524-1527) and of Hebrew
in Basel (from 1536). He translated the New Testament into Hebrew.
[19] Sebastian Castellio (1515-1563), a French classical scholar
and theologian. He was invited by Calvin in 1540 to head the Geneva
College. He did not agree with Calvin on the issue of predestination
and had to leave Geneva for Basel in 1547. He was a strong supporter
of religious tolerance and after the death of Servetus he wrote
several treatises on the subject propagating religious tolerance
and freedom of faith.
[20] Faustus Socinus explained the method of his uncle in one
of his writings, BFP, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 782.
[21] Calvini, J., Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia.
(M. Bruhn, 1870; Reprint by Minerva, G.m.b.H, Frankfurt a. M.,
1964). Vol. XIII, p. 273.
[22] Ibidem, p. 308.
[23] Ibidem, p. 311.
[24] Francesco Lismanini (1504-1556) studied in Italy and became
a Franciscan priest. He came to Poland as the confessor of the
queen, Bona Sforza. He was influenced by Laelius Socinus and Bernardino
Ochino and got interested in the Reformation. In 1553 he traveled
in Europe and under the influence of Calvin he left the Catholic
church. He returned to Poland and became assistant superintendent
of the Calvinist church there in 1555. After the death of the
superintendent of the church, Cruciger, Lismanini lost his influence
among the Polish Calvinists who tilted now toward Antitrinitarianism.
He left Poland for the court of the prince, Albrecht in Königsberg,
where he died.
[25] Calvini, J., Opera, op. cit., Vol. XIV, p. 229-230.
[26] Ibidem, p. 231.
[27] Quoted by Doumergue, É., in op. cit., Vol. VI, p.
463.
[28] Doumergue, É., op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 464.
[29] Calvini, J., Opera, op. cit., Vol. XV, p. 208.
[30] Ibidem, p. 230.
[31] Ibidem, p. 318.
[32] Ibidem, p. 354.
[33] Calvini, J., Opera, op. cit., Vol. XVII, p. 604, 652.
[34] Giorgio Biandrata (1515-1588) Italian physician from Saluzzo
and Antitrinitarian activist. He studied medicine in Montpellier.
In 1552 he returned to Italy to organize protestant congregations
and was forced to flee Italy in 1557 to
