What is Socinianism?

Faustus Socinus (1559-1604), an Italian nobleman, was the leader of an anti-Trinitarian movement in Poland, which lasted about one hundred years, and was then stamped out by bitter persecution on the part of the Jesuits. He taught there was only one God, God the Father; that our Lord was not Divine; that He was not a Mediator; that hell would endure for a time, after which the souls and bodies of the unregenerate would be annihilated and cease to exist. We do not condone the persecuting spirit that prevailed in those days, but we draw attention to this, because their doctrines were similar to those of the Unitarians, so much so that Unitarians have sometimes been called Socinians.

"Brethren" do not contend for unwritten Articles, but for the Written Word and its sufficiency by the power of the Spirit. Articles may fluctuate, as well as minds; they have done so already in Anglicanism, and they may again, but does God's Word change? This, I repeat, is our ground, our only and our perfect standard. Not a single use can be assigned mistakenly to the Articles or Creeds, which is not true, without a mistake, of God's Word. Have we not reason to be supremely thankful that, He has taught us to trust Himself and it? Strange to say, the unhappy person to whom Mr. Carey alludes (long repudiated by us as a blasphemer, p. 41), is the strongest instance we could furnish of the worthlessness of these formularies; for this individual, highly distinguished at Oxford and received by "Brethren" unsuspectingly, was a more diligent student of Confessions of Faith and a more strenuous maintainer of their value, than any man amongst us before or since. And I believe that his ardour for Creeds has grown since the detection of his fundamental unsoundness as to Christ's person and relation to God. Moreover, error, as in this case, assumes new shapes; so that the bulwarks reared by the doctors of the fifth century would be vain to defend the truth against the innovations of the nineteenth. The true question is, whether we have not in the Word an infinitely better armoury already provided for all emergencies? This, at any rate, is the thesis of "Brethren:" let those who will, betake themselves to the feeble, faltering, spasmodic efforts of human wit or strength. As to what is said of a regular ministry, and of creeds, allow me to say that "Brethren" contend for a ministry more regular, because more Scriptural, and for the sole creed which requires no remodelling, even Scripture; and as to safeguards for preserving the truth, I wonder conscience is not ashamed. With heaps of clergy teaching the dregs of Popery, and Rationalism worse than Socinus ever did, without the semblance of a real check, is it possible a quiet clergyman can breathe such a sound? It is certain that among no Christians is there such care in maintaining sound doctrine as among "Brethren," Vagaries are rebuked habitually among us, which in many a sect around us would be accepted as beautiful and good and true. Not one principle distinctive of "Brethren" was adopted by Socinus. The Word and the Spirit of God, as the authoritative directory and the living power of the Church gathered round the person of Christ — on these foundations we stand. How great the contrast! The ignorance as to both us and Socinus is complete. The very essence of his ecclesiastical system (to say nothing of dogma) was the right of man to change what the Lord instituted; and this right, or wrong, Anglicanism has freely used, not the "Brethren," among whom baptism, and the Lord's supper are observed with the utmost solemnity, as free from Socinian laxity as from Anglican superstition.

What principle of "Brethren," I demand, did Socinus ever adopt? The perfect sufficiency of the Word? The personal presence and power of the Spirit? The fact is, he opened his career by writing in defence of the Polish Unitarians, and he closed it by reducing their anti-trinitarian opinions to a system, and their scattered parties to a pretty compact body, with a clergy like their neighbours. His views of sin, justification, baptism, the Lord's supper, and ministry, not to speak of the denial of the proper Deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Ghost, were always and in every respect opposed to those held by the "Brethren." All flowed from his fundamental error of making reason both the standard of truth and the power of apprehending it. So, again, the reference to the Quakers can only be from unacquaintance with the subject. For in every normal meeting of "Friends," they have a bench of elders, and distinct and appointed ministers, among whom women figure not a little. Had Mr. Carey said, that there were a few points of coincidence between the old Waldenses and the "Brethren," he would not have been so wide of the mark. The reader can judge by the following extract from Gieseler (vol. ii., pp. 376 and seq.) "Like Peter de Bruis and Henry, the Waldenses were free from all heresies of opinion, and sought only to restore an apostolic purity of practice. About the year 1170, their founder, Peter Waldensis of Lyons, with a number of followers (Pauperes de Lugduno, Sabatati) began to preach the gospel after the manner of the primitive apostles. So far were they at first from any intention of separating from the church, that having been forbidden to preach by the Archbishop of Lyons, they applied to Pope Alexander III for permission (A.D. 1179). But having afterwards been excommunicated by Lucius III. (A.D. 1184), they thought it their duty to obey God rather than man, and separate from a church which prohibited that which they felt themselves called to do. At first they differed from the church only as to the exclusive right of the clergy to preach … Even where their name was not openly adopted, the influence of their example is seen in the newly-awakened zeal of the people to read the Scriptures for themselves."

Modern Unitarianism denies the Lord Jesus to be more than man, and thus even His supernatural birth of the Virgin Mary, though Socinus asserted the singular modification of such an exaltation after His resurrection as constituted Him an adequate Object of divine worship. Arius seemed to approach the truth on the side of His pre-existence before He came into the world, owned that He, the Son of God, made the universe, but maintained that He was Himself created, though the very first and highest of creatures.

It was not the Sabellian denial of distinct personality, but the refusal to the Son, and of course to the Spirit, of true, proper, essential, and eternal Deity.

Not only is Arianism fundamentally inconsistent with the place given to the Son from first to last throughout scripture, as well as with the infinite work of reconciliation and new creation, for which the old creation furnished but the occasion, but it is distinctly refuted beforehand by many passages of holy writ.

In the sixteenth century in Italy such writers, as Denck, Hetzer, Castellio, Gribaldi, Servetus, were prominent in teaching similar views, viz., that there is only one God, the Father; that Jesus was wholly human; that His death was not an atoning sacrifice. The last-named of these, Servetus (1511-1553), in 1551 published a treatise, The Errors of Trinitarian Beliefs—the chief Trinitarian belief attacked being, that the Godhead embraces Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One in Three, and Three in One, ONE GOD.

We need not dwell on the virtual Socinianism which reduces the death of Christ to an example of love, or to a fidelity which stopped not short of martyrdom. His suffering for us was as unique as His person. Many have lived in devoted love, many have died martyrs, and on a cross too. How comes it that not one suffered as Christ, that He alone is a an object of faith or means of peace? Because He, and He only, suffered for our sins. Quite as low do they go who make His death only a necessary step to His resurrection for assuring men of a future life and fresh pardon, either on God's prerogative, or on man's repentance, or on both. It is clear that, for vindicating God and clearing the conscience, any theory of the kind scarce goes beyond heathenism. Such men neglect the true light which now shines with fulness of love in Christ. Righteousness and grace are alike lost by these thoughts, and Christ, far from being "all," is reduced comparatively, and really indeed, to nothing for atonement.

73 It is this slighting of propitiation and the dying sorrow of Christ — when it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, when He made His soul an offering for sin, when the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, when He was bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, when He once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, being put to death in the flesh — it is this that I abhor and denounce above all. This indeed the Socinian would own-that He was blessedly obedient unto death, that His death was the close of His life-work, all one whole: why should he not? But substitution on the cross, propitiation, drinking the cup of wrath for us there — this the Socinian would not hear of; and this the language of the "Record" sets aside. Nothing, it seems to me, is a more terrible sign of the state of the professing church than the open slighting of Christ's death which is current in it. With Mr. Newton first it was an incident; with the "Christian Examiner" it was having life to pass through death with; for the "Record" it is the close of His life-work, and to be viewed as a whole.

Is propitiation nothing then? or is there such without death and bloodshedding? Was there no cup of wrath then? Was Christ forsaken of God all His life? Why this agony in Gethsemane? Why speak of the cup as yet to drink? I charge the "Record," and all who hold these doctrines, with the horrible denial of the whole meaning and value of Christ's death. The charge is not a light one — I feel it is not. The question is, Is it a true one? None can answer but he who feels what sin is in the sight of God, and knows that Christ was there made sin for us. Scripture indeed shews the folly of such language as that of the "Record." But I do not believe that any one who is not horrified at the language of the "Record" and the "Christian Examiner" has ever felt in his own soul, what none indeed can fathom, what the dying sufferings and sin-bearing of the blessed One were.

When we come to the second goat, substitution is no less plain. In these two will be found some help toward a just appreciation of the day of atonement, as the truth stands fully revealed in the New Testament. For some time an active body of men pronounce themselves "thinkers," and would gladly deny both truths. They wish to fritter all down to the manifestation of gracious feeling in our Lord, to a display of love in martyrdom, or to some kindred departure from God's dealing with sin on the Cross. It is the old error long before Socinus, in a new shape, and on the part of men who shrink from professing to be either Gnostics or Socinians. Such theories are utterly short of, and fatally opposed to, what God wrought in the death of our Lord Jesus. They contradict alike the type and the truth; but the New Testament alone gives the full light of God.

"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Suppose a person held Christ was a mere man, and quoted the passages to prove it that God raised Him, and made Him Lord and Christ, would he be received? If not, you do try whether a man has the faith of God's elect: otherwise a Socinian is admissible as a believer; or you make your opinion of his being a believer the test, entirely independent of the faith of Christ. It is said, You can only require a person to say he receives all in the scriptures. The supposed Socinian would accept such a test at once. They do so. Why should you ask even that? A man may be a believer, and a rationalist in theory (sad as such a thought is), and not accept all the word of God, and say, I am a believer in the cross: you have no right to make a difficulty. If after this you object to any doctrine, or insist on any truth, you have not even scripture to lean on against his denial of it. Scripture says "whom I love in the truth," and "for the truth's sake." The other principle says, That is no matter. You think the person spiritual, a believer; the truth of Christ is no matter — a false one is just as good.

In a certain sense everything is necessarily referred to individual judgment; that is, each one is under its responsibility for himself. A Socinian claims a right to deny the divinity of Christ and the atonement. Were I the pope, I could not hinder his thinking so; but, being a Christian, I know that he is lost if he remain in this state. I cannot make another believe the inspiration of the New Testament: each one must judge for himself. But if Mr. Scherer rejects the word of God, the word will reject him. He is bolder than man should dare to be; but he will not be stronger than God. Salvation does not depend on faith in the inspiration of the New Testament. A man may be saved, though ignorant of its existence, for the truth which it contains may reach his heart through the lips of another. To reject the word of God, when it is made known to us, is quite another thing.

In conclusion, it is very plain that this system is not Christianity. As with Unitarians, the true deity of the Son and the personality of the Spirit are denied. Christ was not God come down, nor is He man gone up. God is not the Saviour-God. A creature created and a creature redeems us; and salvation is putting us in a condition to save ourselves. We are not under grace, but law; and the con-training motive in life is not Christ, but personal aggrandizement. Satan's lie becomes God's truth, — "ye shall be as gods," have life in yourselves and be a source of life to others! Yea, ye shall be the saviours of the world, helping Christ to make an atonement "all-sufficient" without your help. With this are united the doctrines of annihilo-restorationism; and the whole comes to us certified to be the solution of every mystery in Scripture from end to end!