Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

instinctively the measure of intellectual power in those, who possess them? It was so with Socinus. The Divine similitude, the highest faculty in man, that wherein the real man alone consists, he places in the calling to hold dominion over animals. From all the specimens we have given of his religious system, we see a man before us, who judges of Divine things, like a shepherd, a goat-herd, or a cow-herd; but we see no theologian. The following way of dealing with Scriptural texts by Socinus, is certainly not calculated to overturn the judgment we have pronounced upon his very narrowminded views. In order to get rid of the proof, which may be so strictly drawn in favour of the pre-existence of Christ, from those words of John (i. 1), "In the beginning was the Word," the two Socini thus interpreted this passage: "In the beginning of John's preaching, Christ already was the envoy of God." On that text, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John vi. 58), they foisted the following sense: "Before Abram becometh Abraham, I am the light of the world !” the change of name of the aforesaid patriarch was connected with the promise, that he should be the father of many nations, but as, before Christ, he was the father only of one nation, and it was only through the latter many nations entered into the relation of sonship to him, so the Saviour wished to say, before Abram, in fact, merits the name of Abraham, I will be the light of the world; for, I am destined by God to be the mediator of the transformation of the one name into the other! That Christ is termed by John the Creator of the world, they denied; because the text, "Through Him all things were made," &c., was to be referred to the new creation occasioned by Him.* Yet it is not * Catech. Rac. Qu. 107, 128. Oeder, a Protestant Dean, whose

As

here our business to bring forward the exegetical arguments, which the Socinians advance, in support of their doctrines; we shall therefore return to the exposition of their peculiar tenets.

The Holy Ghost, they represent as a power and efficacy of the Deity; but the more exact description they give of this power, will claim our attention later.* The question has often been proposed, with what ancient heresy doth the Socinian conception of Christ agree? It would be easy to discover many points of resemblance with ancient sects; but the Socinians are unable to show a perfect concurrence with any one. With the Arians they, doubtless, agreed in the veneration and worship of one, who became a God-who was a mere creature. But the heretics of the fourth century taught, that the Son of God existed before the world, and that through him the universe was created, and from the beginning governed; a doctrine which their friends, in the sixteenth century, called in question, since they represented the existence of the Saviour as, in every respect, commencing with his earthly nativity;

edition of the Racovian Catechism, in the year 1739, I make use of, says, at p. 146, at the question 107, as follows: ""Perversio clarissimi loci (John vi. 58) ita fœda et simul manifesta est, ut fieri non potuisse credam, ut homines sanæ alioquin mentis, in eas cogitationes inciderent, nisi qui ob abjectum amorem veritatis in reprobum sensum traditi sunt." He is right. Compare Christ. Relig. Instit. Bibl. Frat. Pol. tom. i. fol. 656.

* Catech. Racov. "Qu. 271. Spiritum Sanctum non esse in Deitate personam, et hinc discere potes," etc. Christ. Relig. Instit. ii. fol. 652, Coll. ii. 66 Quid, quæro, de Spiritû sancto nunc mihi dicis? Resp. Nempe, illum non esse personam aliquam, a Deo, cujus est Spiritus, distinctam, sed tantummodo ipsius, Dei vim et efficaciam quandam,” etc. What an absurd answer, in more than one respect! In general, the whole catechetical exposition is very unsuccessful.

and therefore could not teach a creation of the world by him, and even dated from his ascension, only his government of the world, which, even now, according to them, is of a limited nature.

With the Artemonites the Socinians willingly associated themselves; and about the period of their first rise, others (as, for instance, the author of the Augsburg Confession), compared the Unitarians with the disciples of Paul of Samosata. The affinity is, doubtless, not to be denied, since all these families of heretics held Christ to be a mere man, who was conceived of the Divine Spirit, and was sent to men, with a Divine commission. But if the Socinians denied, that before his birth from Mary, Christ had already existed, and was a secondary Lord of the universe (and by this denial they take a position below the Arians), the Artemonites, on the other hand, together with the disciples of Paul of Samosata, rejected even the doctrine, that Christ, after his ascension, was exalted to Divine dignity, and to the government of the world; and hereby fell as far below the Socinians, as these fall below the Arians. Some disciples of Artemon, as well as of Theodotus, rejected, as a later interpolation, the beginning of the Gospel of St. John, and were therefore called Alogi; while Artemon himself asserted, that, before Pope Zephyrinus, Christ was not held to be God. Paul of Samosata suppressed the hymns, wherein Christ was addressed as God, and thereby endeavoured to prevent the worship of Christ. The Socinians, accordingly, occupy the middle place between the Arians and the disciples of Artemon; and have something in common with the errors of all these sectaries, without, however, entirely coinciding with them.

They are also wont to be placed in the same category

with the Photinians. But as these taught, that in Christ there was an union of the Logos, whom they conceived to be impersonal, with the man Jesus, they herein differed from the doctrine of the Socinians. They preached up, moreover, that the kingdom of the Redeemer would have an end; that the union of the Logos with the man Jesus would again be dissolved, and thereby the dominion of Christ cease; whereas the reverse of this was inculcated by the Socinians.

§ xc. On the Fall and the Regeneration of Man.

With reason the Socinians assert, that, by the crea tion, Adam was endowed with free-will, which, in consequence of the Fall, he forfeited neither for himself nor for his posterity; for it is essentially inherent in human nature. Adam, moreover, they say, was created mortal in himself; yet so, that if he had persevered in his obedience to God, he was not under the necessity of dying. Immortality would have been vouchsafed to him, as a gratuitous gift. Original sin, they contend, there is none; and the consequences of Adam's fall extend not beyond his person, with the exception of a certain defectiveness, which occasions death to extend to all his posterity. This was a concession, which the undeniable phenomena of ordinary life wrung from the Socinians; but in their religious system, this concession is so isolated, as to be utterly untenable.*

Corresponding to their notion of the moral malady of mankind, was that of the remedies, which they represented Christ to have proffered us against it. These the Socinians make to consist, in the granting of

*Catech. Racov. Qu. 422, 42, 45.

a purer and more perfect legislation, as well as in the opening the prospect of a future life, confirmed, as it is, by Christ's resurrection, and which, according to them, was not covenanted in the Old Testament, but now only is promised to penitent sinners, and to the observers of the moral precepts.* The Socinians saw themselves compelled to circumscribe, as much as was practicable, the ethical and religious knowledge, and hopes of the ancient world; for, otherwise, there would scarcely have remained any thing, for which, as Christians, we were bounden in gratitude to God and to Christ. How, otherwise, was Christ to be distinguished from the prophets? Hence, they allege even the Lord's Prayer, among the especial revelations, which, through Christ, the Deity hath vouchsafed to men. And had they known that the Saviour found this form of prayer already existing, and only strongly recommended it, then their account of the peculiar services of the envoy of God, would have occupied a totally imperceptible space. The most remarkable, indirect, act of Christ must, according to the Socinian system, when we closely investigate the matter, be evidently the abolition of the ritual and legal ordinances of the Mosaic dispensation; an abolition, to which they refer the establishment of a more spiritual worship of the Deity. But this is a

*Catech. Racov. "Qu. 197. Quid vero hoc novum fœdus comprehendit ? Resp. Duplex rerum genus, quorum unum Deum, alterum nos respicit. Qu. 198. Sunt perfecta mandata et perfecta Dei promissa," etc. Socin. de Justif. Bibl. Frat. Pol. tom. i. fol. 601, Col. i. Resp, ad object. Cuteni. Bibl. Frat. Pol. tom. ii. fol. 454, n. q. † Loc. cit. “ Qu. 217. Quid vero ad hæc addidit Dominus Jesus?” (Namely, to the commandment in the Old Testament, to worship God alone.) Resp. Primum hoc, quod nobis certam orandi rationem præscripsit," etc.

66

« AnkstesnisTęsti »