The One and the Many: Devoted to the Universal and the Particulars

The evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin, established with the publication of “The Origin of Species,” in 1859, has been used, since its publication, to challenge the traditional Christian doctrines concerning God and Creation.  The theologian B. B. Warfield, professor of didactic and polemic theology at Princeton from 1887-1921, argued that there were other ways to interpret the evidence gained through scientific inquiry and evolution, which did not challenge but affirmed traditional Christian doctrines.  Warfield used evidence from evolution to describe how God worked within nature scientifically and the evolutionary evidence could be used to affirm doctrines within theology.  This type of usefulness of the evolutionary theory is seen in Warfield’s descriptions of the biblical concepts known to some as the Covenant of Works and the doctrine of federalism.

Warfield formed his understanding of federalism not only from Scripture and Westminster Confession of Faith, but also from the evidence gained from evolutionary philosophy and scientific inquiry.  This unity of the human race is essential for the doctrine of federalism and historical redemption because both require unity and a human race upon one common source, also known as mono-genetics.  With this unity, Warfield further established that all mankind, from the disobedience of the federal representative Adam, is now born with an innate sinful nature needful of redemption.  This federal representation of Adam, created the need and setting for Christ to become the federal representative for fallen man, in order to become a propitiatory sacrifice for God’s elect, grant salvation to those who have faith, and represent his people during the final judgment.  These doctrines were not innovative to Warfield but describe his connection to the traditions developed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and to Princeton Seminary. 

Warfield taught, like the theological tradition he was part of, that Adam was the federal representative of all humankind and by Adam’s disobedience all humankind fell under the power of sin and misery.  The Westminster Confession in chapter 7:2 states, “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”[1] This is known as the Covenant of Works and is a covenant between God and Adam.  The covenant promised eternal blessings for obedience, but it also established a penalty for breaking this covenant.  The penalty is human death and is affirmed in Genesis 2:17; it states, “…you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”[2]  This concept is also described in the Westminster Confession in chapter 6:2-3:

            By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and         so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and     body.  They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the           same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending          from them by ordinary generation.

The Covenant of Works was bilateral agreement made between God and Adam that established Adam as the representative head of all humanity; also known as federalism.  God promised Adam eternal blessings for his perfect obedience, but also established the penalty that if Adam broke this covenant, he would “surely die.” The Confession teaches that Adam, the first man, represented all humankind, and when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he broke the bilateral agreement with God.  Adam being responsible for his disobedience suffered the penalty.  The outcome of this disobedience placed the human race under the power of sin and misery.  The human race after the fall, remained in the image of God but in the words of Louis Berkhof, after eating the forbidden fruit, “Adam became the bond-servant of sin.  That sin carried permanent pollution with it, and a pollution which, because of the solidarity of the human race, would affect not only Adam but all his descendents as well.”[3] This “pollution” was passed from Adam to his offspring, thus, with this establishment of the unity of the human race, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”[4]

Warfield viewed the usefulness of evolutionary philosophy and utilized the (what he determined to be) evidence of his belief of federalism.  The main development within natural science during the life of Warfield was the theory of evolution developed by Charles Darwin and this theory advanced the “scientific view that man was part of the natural world.”[5] This theory gave “high-calibre ammunition for opponents of religion.  It could be used to disprove the doctrine of the Creation and Providential nature of history.”[6] It is clear that Warfield has a respect and understanding of evolution because Warfield wrote many essays about Darwin’s religious life, evolution, and scientific methods.  Warfield’s understanding and usefulness of evolution was based upon his understanding of objective science.  Warfield was willing to incorporate scientific knowledge into his theology and ultimately the evidence from evolution was formulated into his description and defense of the Covenant of Works. 

            Warfield develops in his essay, “On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race,” that the questions concerning the “method of divine procedure in creating man,” became heightened during the arrival of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” in 1859.[7] Along with this concern about God’s methods in creating man, were questions regarding the antiquity of humankind and Creation.  To Warfield, these latter questions have no “theological significance,”[8] because the Bible does not address the issue and the chronological scheme of counting generation records in order to gain the antiquity of man is “pure illusion.”[9] Warfield concludes, that because the Bible is silent regarding how God created humankind and the actual time length in creation, theologians, whose source of knowledge comes from revelation, must be silent regarding the antiquity of man and how God created nature.  The theologian only receives from revelation that God created not his methods of creation.  Thus, in the realm of theology, according to Warfield, there is no possible way to know when or how God created the heavens and the earth; he just affirms that God created.

            It is from this point that Warfield moves from questions concerning the antiquity of mankind to important theological questions concerning the unity of the human race.  This unity of the human race, according to Warfield, is not only proved to be true from Scripture but also from evolutionary philosophy.  Warfield definition of evolution is that the “entire development of animate forms had been the product of selection, by the pressure of the environment, of infinitesimal variations in an almost infinite series of successive generations…that chance plus time are the true causes which account for the whole body of differentiated forms….”[10] This scientific formula of unlimited time promoted by Darwin gives evolution the ability to conclude change in geology, species, and human development by an unrestricted slow process.  To Warfield, this unrestricted slow process is an assumption and is not logical, because “what is needed to account for it [change] is not time in any extension, but an adequate cause.”[11] From this, we see Warfield departing from atheistic and materialistic Darwinism, in order to embrace evolutionary philosophy that understands God as being the first cause of change and formation.[12]

            Both David Livingstone and Mark Noll argue that Warfield made a connection between creation and evolutionary science, because of his view of organic inspiration.  They describe Warfield’s view of organic inspiration as a “joint product of divine and human activities…working harmoniously together…” in order to create God’s special revelation. [13]  It is here in the doctrine of organic inspiration where God uses man’s personality, style, culture, and language to create the Scripture for humankind.  Livingstone and Noll argue that because Warfield was able to make this connection between God and man working together in organic inspiration, Warfield was then able to see evolutionary philosophy and Divine creation in the same way.  Thus, Warfield could see evolution as “both natural forces and divine action,”[14] working “harmoniously” together.  I cordially disagree to this representation of Warfield in two respects, because it does not show the reasons why Warfield made this connection between natural science and divine action; it just makes an interesting connection.  It also does not conclude logically or historically that because of his views of organic inspiration, being a balance of nature (humankind) and Divine guidance then this alone allowed Warfield to see evolution as natural force working “harmoniously” together with God.  This connection between evolutionary philosophy and divine creation was made possible because of Warfield’s theological method, which incorporates scientific objective knowledge within theology.  Warfield could also make this connection between natural forces working with divine action because of his specific definition of evolution and its evidence; not from an interesting connection to organic inspiration.   

            Warfield’s theological method allowed him to use evidence from evolution to affirm the biblical account concerning the unity of man and this is one of the ways we see Warfield enthusiastic about evolution. [15] This enthusiasm is seen in his arguments concerning the unity of the human race and the debates between mono-genetics and poly-genetics.  This genetics debate runs at the center of human descent and reaches not only religious levels of concern but also social and political levels.[16]

            The main concern here is that some contemporary creationists condemn all forms of evolution and do not realize that Warfield’s evolutionary philosophy, understood properly, gives evidence for the unity of the human race, thus establishing federalism and the Covenant of Works.  Livingstone argues that some evangelicals and creationists use Warfield to affirm the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and, at the same time, use Warfield’s views of inspiration to fight against evolution.[17] [18] In the opinion of Livingstone, Warfield’s arguments concerning inerrancy are being used by creationists to fight against evolution, because they assume that all forms of evolution affirm social Darwinism and all forms of evolution develop into racial pride inspiring undesirable events like eugenics and Nazi Germany.  This is pure ignorance upon the use of Warfield, because Warfield did not see a contradiction between the biblical Creation account and forms of evolution.  To Warfield, the evidence gained from evolutionary philosophy does not affirm poly-genetics or social Darwinism.  Warfield argued that it was racial pride alone that established poly-genetics not the evidence of evolution. 

            Despite contemporary confusion, Warfield’s understanding of evolutionary philosophy can be used to affirm the Biblical account in Genesis.[19] Warfield reaches this conclusion about the unity of the human race not exclusively from evolutionary philosophy, but from a variety of disciplines within science.  Warfield wrote concerning this unity, that “[t]his evidence is drawn almost equally from every department of human manifestation [evolution], physiological, psychological, philological and even historical.”[20] With this evidence from science and evolutionary philosophy, Warfield is able to show from science the truthfulness of the biblical doctrines concerning federalism and then describe the importance of Covenant of Works.  Warfield says, “Throughout the Scriptures therefore all mankind is treated as, from the divine point of view, a unit, and shares not only in a common nature but in a common sinfulness, not only in a common need but in a common redemption.”[21] With this establishment of a common sinfulness from Adam’s disobedience proven true from both science and scripture, all of the human race is needful of a common redemption.  Warfield said, “It is only because all men were in Adam as their first head that all men share in Adam’s sin and with his sin in his punishment.”[22]  It is here that we find Warfield’s description of federalism and that all humankind are needful of redemption because of Adam’s covenant breaking with God.  Warfield showed that because of the fall of Adam, as the federal representation of humankind, all humans are under the curse of the law.  This federalism of Adam then passes our fallen nature to every generation thus creating the need for redemption. 

            Warfield used evolutionary philosophy to support federalism, because the evidence affirmed the biblical doctrine concerning the unity of the human race.  Thus, affirming human depravity was caused by a broken covenant between God and Adam.  From this point, Warfield said, “The unity of the human race is there fore made in Scripture…[and becomes] the bases also of the entire scheme of restoration devised by the divine love for the salvation of a lost race.”[23]  With Warfield’s description of the Covenant of Works, he was then able to show that Christ fulfilled this covenant for humankind by becoming a human, living a human life, fulfilling the works of the law and becoming to propitiation for our sins.  Warfield uses the back drop of the law to establish the fulfillment of Christ.  This is also affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in chapter 7:3 it states, “Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by the covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace….”[24]

Historians of Christian doctrine are able to describe the development of the Trinity into what is known as “Trinitarian Orthodoxy.”[1]  It was during the first four centuries of the Christian Church that the description of the Trinity was officially defined and binding to the Christian faith.  These creeds are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed and Chalcedonian Creed.  Overall, what these creeds needed to express was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally one God, without sacrificing a “commitment to the monotheism of the Old Testament.”[2]  At the same time, the catholic creeds all assume that “the divine authority of the scriptural teaching underlies all the creedal statements of the church; all of which are formally based upon the Scriptures.”[3] The Athanasian Creed describes the doctrine of God in the following: “And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.  For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal…”

A catholic description of God has these marks: the existence of one God who is of one essence, substance, or being, but also subsists in three persons, namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  When dealing with the being of God, or what is referred to as the ontological Trinity, orthodox descriptions of the Trinity must affirm the existence of one God, who is of one substance, yet of three subsistences.[4] 

According to A. A. Hodge the word subsistence is “used to signify that mode of existence which distinguishes one individual thing from every other individual thing… [S]ubsistence is that mode of existence which is peculiar to each of the divine persons, and which in each constitutes the essence a distinct person.”[5] John Calvin said, “Person, therefore, I call a ‘subsistence’ in God’s essence, which, while related to the others, is distinguished by an incommunicable quality.  By the term ‘subsistence’ we would understand something different from ‘essence.’[6] 

With this definition of subsistence it is now important to understand the personal attributes of the three subsistences and distinguish between the subsistences in themselves and the subsistence towards creatures.  Zacharias Ursinus referred to this distinction as “ad intra” and “ad extra.”  The former refers to the internal relationships of the ontological Trinity and Ursinus states:

“By these internal works or properties, therefore, the persons are first distinguished from each other.  For the Father is, and exists of himself, not from another.  The Son is begotten eternally from the Father, that is, he hath his divine essence communicated to him from the Father…The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and the Son, that is, has the same divine essence communicated to him from the Father and the Son…”[7]

Here we see that the internal relations are distinct in name and that the three persons are “distinguished among themselves not essentially (according to the esse common to them all) but nevertheless really; because one persona is produced by another.  And at once they differ in their incommunicable attribute, i.e., according to the subsistence to each persona.”[8] The personal attributes of the Father are that he is “not made, not begotten, but begetting the Son” and these attributes are incommunicable.  It is from this attribute that the Father is referred to as the fons totius divinitatis.[9]  The Son is eternally generated from the Father and “receives and has in himself his whole and complete essence from the Father.”[10]  The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son and has the same essence as the Father and the Son.[11]  Due to the fact that the “Divine nature is God; therefore it is common to all three personae…”[12] 

The distinction “ad extra” refers to the three subsistences working in creation and redemption and these subsistences have been revealed by their works “exercised towards his creatures.”[13]  It is important to understand that the “ad intra” operations of the divinity embrace “those actions which they exercise out of themselves, towards their creatures…”[14] In summary, the three persons of the Trinity have been revealed in Scriptures by their function.  Thus, it can be concluded that the Father is creator of the Heavens and Earth, the Son is redeemer and the way of salvation, and the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier and illuminates faith in the hearts of mankind.  At the same time, these three subsistences work harmoniously together in creation and redemption and the divine works are ultimately common to each.

The internal relationships of the three subsistences are distinguished by incommunicable attributes and each subsistence is of the same substance.  The Father is un-begotten, the Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.  The three subsistences are made known by their works towards creatures, thus they are all revealed within the Biblical narrative of creation and redemption.  Each of the subsistences have a particular function, but “they work together in a perfectly harmonious economy of operations upon the creation;–the Father creating and sitting supreme in the general administration; the Son becoming incarnate in human nature, and, as the Theanthropos, discharging the functions of mediatorial prophet, priest, and king…”[15] 

The orthodox description of the Trinity is to affirm that God is of one substance and subsists in three persons.  At the same time, the three subsistences have been revealed within the context of salvation.  It is important to understand that there are important distinctions to be made concerning the Trinity, but at the same time, important applications.  These applications have been revealed within the Biblical narrative of creation and human redemption. 

[1] See, J.N.D Kelly Early Christian Doctrines, (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 223-279; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971),172-223; Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 133-151.

[2] Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993),153.

[3] B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg: 1948), 110.

[4] The Trinitarian language used to describe the being and persons of God has changed throughout history.  Sometimes the being of God is referred to as essence, being, substance, or remains in the Greek word: ousia.  The subsistences are sometime referred to as persons or persona.  The terms homoousios and hypostasis have also been used in Trinitarian language, but have been used differently throughout history. For this development see: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1, XII, 4-6; also see: Johannes Wollebius, Reformed Dogmatics ed. & trans. John. W. Beardslee III, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965),39-42; also see: Heinrich Heppe Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. GT Thomson. (Elm Grove London: Wakemen Great Reprints), 110-116; A. A Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: The Banner of Truth, 1972),164-168.

[5] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, (London: The Banner of Truth, 1972),165.

[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), I, XIII, 6.

[7] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company),135.

[8] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),112.

[9] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),115.

[10] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),115.

[11] Throughout the history of Christianity, there has been a long debate over the procession of the Holy Spirit even to the point of helping cause the Eastern and Western Church split.  The nature of the debate revolved around the phrase “and the Son” within the Nicene Creed, in which Reformed Confession were influenced.  The Eastern Church, centered at Constantinople, claimed that the word filioque was added to the creed without the use of an ecumenical council, thus this doctrine was not a universal doctrine and not binding upon the universal Church.   The Western Church, centered at Rome, believed this to be an essential doctrine of the Trinity.  After the Reformation, we can see that the Reformed Church affirmed the position of the Western Church be placing the filioque into their confessions. 

[12] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),113.

[13] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard. (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company),135.

[14] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard. (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company),137.

[15] A. A. Hodge, The Westminster Confession. (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002),59.

 Socinianism is a theological and religious movement that developed during the beginning of the seventeenth century and is directly associated with the theological convictions of Fausto Paolo Sozzini (latinized into Socinus).  It is generally agreed that Socinus and his sympathizers established what is commonly known as Unitarianism and is fundamentally an anti-Trinitarian movement that exchanged the Christian doctrine of the Trinity with a more general belief in Jesus as a divinely inspired person with exceptional abilities to keep the commands of God.  Despite this general knowledge of Socinianism, historical evaluations often overlook the notion that this movement is a more all-encompassing deviation from both catholic tradition and Reformed theology.  These deviations are not only established by their rejection of the Trinity, but also by their apparent reinterpretation of “original sin” and their affirmation of Adam’s natural mortality.  Due to these considerations and apparent deviations it is best to classify Socinianism as residing within a particular culture, applying particular assumptions and composing a particular system of theology.  Thus it is best to classify Socinianism within its own terms and historically as a part or a branch of the “Radical Reformation.”   The method of this argument or representation is to consider Socinianism as residing within a particular culture in Northern Europe, applying particular assumptions based upon the authority of human reason and composing a particular system of theology established within the Racovian Catechism.  This essay is particularly concerned with a compare and contrast of the Racovian Catechism and the Reformed Confessions in matters of theological anthropology.  The purpose of this essay is not to develop a full theological understanding of Socinianism and compare it with the history of theology and orthodoxy in general, but is specific to identify the differences between the theological anthropology represented in the Racovian Catechism and the theological anthropology represented in the Reformed confessions.  It is from this comparison that the thesis of this essay is established.  The claim of this essay is that historically Socinianism needs to be understood as more than just an anti-Trinitarian movement but a more all-encompassing deviation from both catholic and Reformed theology, because of their emphasis upon the authority of human reason and their understanding of theological anthropology.  It is from this perspective of Socinianism that we can historically understand this movement as a deviation away from Reformed theology during the early seventeenth century.   

Although it is somewhat reductionistic, secondary literature is divided into two groups when describing the roots of Socinianism.  These two groups are divided over the relationship between the Reformation in terms of Lutheranism and Calvinism and the Anabaptists, Spiritual writers, and Socinians.[1]  Some scholars describe Socinianism as naturally developing out of the basic assumptions of the Protestant Reformation.  It is argued that since the Reformation was a “back to the Bible” movement the Socinians were inspired and claimed that their theology, despite their deviate conclusions, was most Biblical.  Adolf Harnack argues for continuity between the Reformation and Socinians in terms of ecclesiastical agitation.  Harnack states that “Sozzini was an epigone like Calvin,” and concludes that the unifying factor in all of the Reformation and all of its outcomes was an “anti-ecclesiastical agitation.”[2] Thus, the relationship between the Reformation and Socinianism is basically “familial” and the one begat the other.  The second group is best represented by Thomas Lindsay, who argues that the roots of Socinianism are not strictly inspired by the ideals of the Reformation, but were actually based upon late medieval assumptions founded by Soctist-Pelagianism and Jesuit theology.[3]  In both of these groups there is a recognized understanding that there is both continuity and discontinuity between the Reformation and Socinianism and at the same time continuity and discontinuity between Roman Catholicism and Socinianism.  Overall, the relationship between the Reformation and the Radical Reformation is not one simple formulaic explanation, but has a variety of influences and is particular in culture, assumptions and theology.

Socinianism is best classified as a critical and reconstructive post-Reformation movement, which was self-defined during the beginning of the seventeenth century.  This movement is directly associated with the theological ideas of Fausto Paolo Sozzini, who was influenced by both his uncle Lelio Sozzini and Michael Servetus.[4]  The historical context and culture of Socinianism is widely described in terms of authority and “theological rebels.”  In the context of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the authority was the Roman Catholic Church and the rebels were the theologically agitated groups that found refuge in areas north of Rome.  In basic terms, the rebels were those who had confronted Roman Catholic theology and were forced north out of the Roman Catholic centers and territories towards the outskirt lands of Northern Europe.  It is here in central and northern Europe that individuals fleeing the authority of papal rule (whom at this time had become highly unsympathetic towards forms of innovative theology) could find new residence.  It is not without significance that Socinianism arose in Northern Europe, primarily in Poland, which is an area characterized by a great distance away from Rome and an area that was able to reestablish and redefine itself in terms of politics and theology. 

This migration away from Catholic centers and territories is seen in the life of Socinus’ Uncle Lelio Sozini.  Lelio concluded in 1547 that Roman territories were no longer tolerant and believed it best to travel North out of Siena.  He traveled to southern Europe in order to flee away from the persecuting powers of the Roman Church and the Inquisition of 1542 fueled by Pope Paul III.  It is here that Lelio engaged himself with Philipp Melanchthon and John Calvin and was accepted in lands where Lutherans and Reformed churches thrived.  Eventually Lelio migrated to Switzerland were many other Italian refugees had moved and here he helped foster the Socinian Church in Northern Europe.[5] 

Fausto Sozzini was born in Siena in 1539 and is considered the father of Socinianism.  In his younger years he was educated as a lawyer and became extremely fond of theology.  Eventually, he too migrated north and resided in Poland where he published two major theological books, which are characterized by not beginning with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but a moral example theory of Christ’s atonement.[6]  His influence upon the Socinian Church is unmatched and he insisted that the real problems within the divided Unitarian Church were issues concerning baptism.  It was during this time that the Anabaptists would not recognize Socinus as member of the church unless he was re-baptized and this issue highlights the last stages of his life.  It was between 1579-1603, that Socinus was a prolific writer whose main goal was to reunite the Polish Church.  These correspondences have been collected in a two-volume set titled, Bibliotech Fratrum Polonorum.  Eventually, his efforts bore fruit when the Unitarians in Poland united under the name: the Polish Brethren.[7]  It was also from his efforts that the catechism of the Polish Church was created and published. 

The most important writings of this movement are based upon the works of Socinus himself and the Racovian Catechism first published in Poland in 1605.[8] It was in Rakow, Poland that this catechism was produced and upheld as a pedagogical tool within both the Rokow Church and the local College.  Despite the fact that the catechism was published two years after the death of Socinus in 1603, it remains historical to conclude that Socinus helped formulate this catechism, because of his direct involvement in its formation and his influence within the local college.  At the same time, there is continuity between Socinus’ own personal essays and sermons and the doctrines taught within the catechism.  The Racovian Catechism is thus the major primary source in defining this theological movement. 

The Racovian Catechism offers a summary of Socinianism and is divided into eight sections all pertaining to the theology that concerned Socinus.  The first section defines the Holy Spirit as the Word of God and sets the stage to how Jesus became the revealer of God in terms of knowledge and obedience.  It is here that human reason is established as a means of final authority and is defined as a direct connection between the words of God and human thought.  Thus, because of this connection what is most true is most reasonable and this creates human reason as the final authority in issues of Christian theology.  It is clear that to Socinians the “idea of faith is intellectual.  It is assensus and not fiducia.”[9] The second section of the catechism defines human salvation in terms of knowledge and the imitation of the faith and obedience of Jesus.  It is here that there is an appeal to mankind’s original morality in which one can achieve the goal of immortality, like Jesus, through faith and obedience.  The third section defines who God is and our knowledge of God based upon human reason, while the fourth section describes our knowledge of Christ who was born of a virgin and was ultimately a mortal man who became immortal through obedience.  It is from obedience that Christ became the chief priest who directs our faith by his example.  To Socinians, Christ was divine only in the sense that he was given authority by God and is unique only because God treated him differently than the rest of humanity.  In sections five through seven, the catechism describes the prophetic office of Christ who teaches the will of God and concludes that the death of Christ is not priestly but prophetic to teach God’s love for sinners.  Socinians conclude that Christ did not die to pay a penalty for sins, but shows that God simply forgives sin and calls us to personal merits propelled by the inspiring example of Christ.  This section also describes faith by focusing upon the promises of God and upon Christ’s willingness to obey God’s precepts.  Thus, it is concluded that justification is by faith and obedience, along with a generic claim that so long as humankind attempts to do their best and to trust in God, God will ultimately be gracious and grant salvation.  The last section of the catechism finishes by describing the nature and function of the church in terms of government and discipline.

            One of the major themes throughout this catechism is a emphasis that human reason alone is the ultimate authority in matters of Christian doctrine.  It is clear that the catechism helped perpetuate the assumption of this movement, namely its intellectual and rationalistic tendencies.  The intellectual freedom and rationalistic tendencies are the foundation to Socinus’ deviations away from certain universal doctrines held by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformed Church.  It is the purpose of this essay to show that this emphasis upon human reason was employed to reinterpreted aspects of Adam’s original condition.

Socinian’s doctrine of the natural mortality of mankind is seen in The Racovian Catechism, Section II.1, which states:

But wherefore is man obnoxious to death?  On two accounts:–whereof the first, is that he was originally created mortal;–that is, was so constituted that he was not only by nature capable of dying, but also, if left to himself, could not but die; though he might, through the divine goodness, be for ever preserved alive [italics mine].[10]

It is here that the catechism establishes Adam in his original condition as created mortal and placed on the earth to face his death and the catechism establishes this conclusion based upon a number of reasons.  First, it argues that because man was created out of the dust, he will then naturally return to the dust.  At the same time, because Adam had a need for food to sustain himself, it logically concludes that he was created mortal and could potentially die.  Also, the Racovian Catechism continually argues from implication, that if Adam was created immortal, then it would have “availed nothing to grant him the tree of life, whose fruit had the power of perpetuating existence.”[11] Further support to their claims of Adam’s natural mortality is that because Adam was destined by God to beget children, then logically Adam was created mortal and called to exist as a human race by propagation.[12] Lastly, the catechism concludes, “who can doubt that his nature was such that he might have been stabbed, or suffocated, or burnt, or crushed to pieces, or in many other ways destroyed?”[i]  Here it is argued that because Adam could have hypothetically died from an unfortunate accident it logically concludes that Adam was created mortal.  Taken as a whole, the reasons for Adam’s mortality display the rational tendencies of the catechism, which are the foundations of their conclusions.

Socinians apparent reinterpretation of “original sin” is seen in The Racovian Catechism, Section V. 10, which states, “And the fall of Adam, as it was but one act, could not have power to deprave his own nature, much less that of his posterity.”[13] It is here in the catechism that Adam represents himself as an individual man and not his entire posterity.  It is argued that Adam’s sin and fall had not corrupted the entire human race, but his life was simply a poor example not to follow.  Socinians confess this doctrine against a doctrine of original sin that describes Adam’s first sin as being passed to all of his posterity and thus all of Adam’s posterity is born with a sinful nature.  For Socinians this doctrine of original sin created an unreasonable and arbitrary act of justice by God, which is simply imposed upon all humankind.  At the same time, what reinforces human individual responsibility is not Adam’s first sin, but the fact that all humans have free will, thus are individually responsible for their actual sins and not the sins of Adam. Socinians claim that in no way did the fall of Adam affect the moral and intellectual capabilities of mankind, because what remains and is passed down to all of humanity is free will and not original sin.[14]

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Socinianism in general created reactions within many Calvinist and Lutheran churches.  Also many Protestant theologians during this time labeled this movement as a direct threat against Christianity and public morality.  It is clear that there are many differences between Socinianism and Reformed theology.  One of the differences is seen in the theological anthropology represented in the Racovian Catechism and the theological anthropology represented in the Reformed confessions.  Particular to the Reformed confession is the focus upon the condition in which God created Adam.[15]  The Westminster Confession of Faith 4.2 states:

After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; have the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.  Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.[16]

Within the Reformed confessions and catechisms there is agreement that the Genesis narrative refers to God creating Adam good and upright, breathing into him the breath of life and placing him within Paradise.  It is in this setting that God gave Adam commands to obey, one of which was not to eat the fruit from the tree that gives knowledge of good and evil along with a stipulation that whenever Adam ate of this forbidden fruit he would truly die.   Eventually, Adam did not obey this command and upon his disobedience was expelled from Paradise to face his death.  Adam’s disobedience set the stage for what the Reformed Confession refers to as “original sin” which affirms the consequences of Adam’s disobedience that is common to all humanity.  The difference between Socinianism and Reformed theology revolves around Adam’s original condition.  For Socinians Adam was created mortal and represented himself, while the Reformed confessions claim that Adam was created immortal and represents his entire posterity. 

It is because of this comparison that Socinianism needs to be understood as not just an anti-Trinitarian movement, but a more all-encompassing deviation that resided in Poland, advocated conclusions upon the use of human reason, and created a particular theological system, which not only rejected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity but also reinterpreted Adam’s original condition.  This classification is not simply imposed upon the movement, but arises out of their own self-proclamation and their conscious disassociation with the historical church at large.  It is true that this movement thought of itself as a church and first called itself the Minor Reformed Church and later under the influence of Socinus united to form the Polish Reformed Church, which eventually became the Polish Brethren.  Despite their affiliation with the Reformed Church in name it does not conclude that Socinianism was a part of the Reformed Church, because of these apparent differences.  At the same time and to some extent Socinians did not consider themselves as “out-side” of the Church, but did possess a self-conscious understanding that their theology did advocate deviations, but to them it was a matter of degrees.  In other words, it is apparent that this tradition did not begin as a revolt in explicit separation, but nevertheless the catechism shows that this movement did understand its discontinuity with traditional Christian dogma, which promoted them to argue their case against other theological norms.

The Socinian doctrine of Adam’s original mortality and the reinterpretation of Adam’s first sin is in contrast to the Reformed confessions, which teach that Adam was created immortal and Adam’s first sin established original sin which was passed to all of his posterity. Historically Socinianism is better described as more than just an anti-Trinitarian movement, but was more all-encompassing deviation away from Reformed theology, because of their emphasis upon the authority of human reason and their understanding of theological anthropology.  Overall, the Socinian doctrine is based upon a rationalistic hermeneutic in which non-biblical reasons were the motivating evidence in their conclusions.  Socinians

placed a high degree of emphasis upon the use of right reason in order to interpret the Bible. Their assumptions lie both in the perspicuity of Scripture in which their approach to Scripture was not in light of church tradition and their own reasonable evaluation of the Scriptures.  For Socinians, true religion was the reasonable religion and thus consistent with human reason.  It is evident that the individualist character of Socinianism was the driving force of their understanding of faith. To the Socinians, the Scriptures are a means for doctrine, morals and practice, not a means of grace.  At the same time, this movement rejected the authority of established tradition and replaced it with their proclamation of “right reason.”

[2] Adolf Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma trans. Edwin Knox Mitchell (London: Hodder and Stoughton, MDCCXCIII), 529. Harnack, in History of Dogma, states “Socinianism, viewed from the standpoint of the history of the Church and of dogma, had for its presuppositions the great anti-ecclesiastical agitations of the Middle Ages; but the Reformation also influenced it.  It was evolved out of these agitations; it explained them and reduced them to a unity…”

[3] Thomas M. Lindsay,  A History of The Reformation  (New York: Books For Libraries Press, 1972), 470ff. Lindsay argues that the roots of Sociniansim were established in  “Soctist-Pelagian” theology which continued its legacy within Jesuit theology.

[4] Lelio Sozzini is sometimes spelled Olalio Sozzini.

[5] See, Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought: From Its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins to Existentialism, ed. Carl E. Barrten, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), 287ff.

[6] For a summary of Socinians doctrine of atonement and free will, see: Robert Strimple,  “God’s Sovereignty & Man’s Free Will” Modern Reformation Jan/Feb 1993, 3-7.

[7] For a history of this movement and primary texts see: The Polish Brethren: Documentation of the History & Thought of Unitarianism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonweath and in the Diaspora, 1601-1685, ed. and trans. George Huntston Williams, (Missoula: Harvard Theological Review, 1980).  Also see, Thomas M. Lindsay, A History of the Reformation (New York: Books For Libraries Press, 1972).

[8] Socinus’ works have been collected together within: The Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum. 

[9] Thomas M. Lindsay, A History of the Reformation (New York: Books For Libraries Press, 1972), 475.

[10] Racovian Catechism, Section II.1 trans. Thomas Rees, (Lexington Kentucky: The American Theological Library Association, 1962), 21.

[11] Racovian Catechism, 21-22.

[12] Racovian Catechism, 21-22.

[13] Racovian Catechism, 326.

[14] In the Racovian Catechism 10.10, the doctrine of human free-will is established and a brief summary of Adam and the fall is addressed.  It is here that the catechism further deals with issues of Adam’s original sin.

[15] The Reformed Confessions can be understood as those created in the sixteenth and seventeenth century by Reformed churches that produces the Three Forms of Unity: The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), The Hedelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1618-1619), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646-1647), and The Shorter and Larger Catechism (1647). 

[16] The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001).  Also, see Westminster Larger Catechism: 17,  “Q: How did God create man? A: “After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the women of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls, made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, have the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and dominion over the creatures; yet subject to fall.”  Also, see the Belgic Confession Article 14.1; Heidelberg Catechism Questions 5-9; Second Helvetic Confession 8.1-6; and the Canons of Dort Head I-II.