REVIEW.

ARTICLE XV.

The Racovian Catechism, with Notes and Illustrations, trans lated from the Latin: to which is prefixed a Sketch of the History of Unitarianism in Poland and the adjacent coun tries. By THOMAS REES, F. S. A. London, 1818.

IN N our last number but one, we gave some account of this work, with several extracts from the Historical Introduction; but were prevented by want of room from noticing the Catechism itself an omission which it is our present purpose to supply. We should not recall the attention of our readers to this book, nor trouble them with any further observations upon it, if it did not afford us a favourable opportunity of laying before them the true principles of Socinianism, and in this way convincing them how entirely inapplicable is that name to the system held by modern Unitarians.

The Racovian Catechism derives its designation from Racow, a city in Poland, where the early Socinians had their principal establishment. It was drawn up partly for the instruction and confirmation of their own body, and partly to repel the reproaches and aspersions cast upon them by their enemies. It is supposed to have been founded on a small work of the same description, ascribed to the celebrated George Schomann, and pub. lished in 1574 under the following title; "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. Deut. vi. 5. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.' John viii. 54. It is my Father, of whom ye say that he is your God.'" We are indebted to Mosheim for what we know of this interesting document. The truly christian spirit which it every where breathes, is evinced in the salutation with which the preface opens. To all those who thirst after eternal salvation, the little and afflicted flock in Poland, which is baptized in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, sendeth greeting; praying New Series-vol. III.

6

56

most earnestly that grace and peace may be shed upon them by the one Supreme God and Father, through his only begotten Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, who was crucified.' It inculcates the unitarian and anabaptist doctrines, as they were then understood; but it does not appear to have gone very deeply into abstruse questions and points of controversy, and its general execution is spoken of by the writer just mentioned in disparaging terms. When it was resolved that the Catechism should assume its present form, the task of revising and re-modelling the whole work was assigned to Faustus Socinus, and Peter Statorius, junior; but both of these men being prevented by death from completing their undertaking, it was in consequence transferred to Valentine Smalcius and Jerome Moscorovius, with whom it would appear that Volkelius was also associated. The work, as reformed and completed by these eminent men, was first published in the Polish language in 1605. It was soon translated into different languages, and passed through several editions; amended and enlarged, by a few alterations in the text, but chiefly by the addition of many valuable notes and illustrations from the learned editors. The edition, from which the present translation is made, was published in 1680 at Amsterdam, in Latin, with the following descriptive title page: Catechism of the Churches of Poland, which confess according to the Scriptures, one God, the Father, his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. First published in 1609; and since, by order of the same churches, corrected and more than one half enlarged; revised also and improved by men eminent in those Congregations-John Crellius, Jonas Schlichtingius, Martin Ruarus, Andrew Wissowatius, Benedict Wissowatius, and an anonymous writer, F. C. Illustrated with their Notes."

Those acquainted with the history of Socinianism will recognize among the names above mentioned, those of some of the most distinguished framers and supporters of that system. A work composed and edited, as this has been, by some of their principal writers, must certainly be allowed to have authority in settling the question, what Socinianism is. It presents us, in a systematic form, with a rule of faith and practice according to the Socinian scheme; and instead of being, as Mosheim would insinuate, a specious and artful summary of their doctrine, designed only to impose upon strangers, it insists with peculiar earnestness, and dwells at the greatest length, on those very tenets, which were most likely to bring upon them obloquy and persecution. From the nature of this work, much of it, of course, relates to subjects on which all christians are agreed; but in the extracts, which we are about to make, we shall confine ourselves

chiefly to such as give the Socinian peculiarities. In this way we shall be able, at the same time, to do justice to the old Socinians by allowing them to speak for themselves, where they are most liable to misrepresentation; and also to the modern Unitarians, by showing that they are not to be confounded with

them.

It is charged upon the Socinians as a fundamental error, that they gave a dangerous and pernicious latitude to the use of reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures. But the canon, they lay down on this subject, is one against which, we think, it would be difficult to object.

'By what means may the more obscure passages of Scripture be understood?

By carefully ascertaining, in the first instance, the scope, and other circumstances, of those passages, in the way which ought to be pursued in the interpretation of the language of all other written compositions. Secondly, by an attentive comparison of them with similar phrases and sentences of less ambiguous meaning. Thirdly, by submitting our interpretation of the more obscure passages to the test of the doctrines which are most clearly inculcated in the Scriptures, as to certain first principles; and omitting nothing that disagrees with these. And lastly, by rejecting every interpretation which is repugnant to right reason, or involves a contradiction.' p.

18.

Unitarians generally, and doubtless most christians of other denominations, would consent to the correctness of these laws of interpretation. The office and authority they assign to reason, are the same assigned it by Mr. Locke; who, in his excellent chapter on Faith and Reason, and their distinct provinces,' expressly asserts, that there can be no evidence, that any traditional revelation is of divine original, in the words we receive it, and in the sense we understand it, so clear and so certain, as that of the principles of reason; and therefore, nothing that is contrary to and inconsistent with the clear and selfevident dictates of reason, has a right to be urged or assented to as matter of faith wherein reason has nothing to do.'

Another charge urged against the Socinians is, that they degrade the Son of God into a mere common man. On this subject we choose to give their own language. Speaking of Christ, they ask,

'What are the things relating to his Person, which I ought to know?

This one particular alone,-that by nature he was truly a man, a mortal man while he lived on earth, but now immortal. That he was a real man the Scriptures testify in several places: Thus

I Timothy ii. 5, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus." I Corinthians xv. 21, 22, "Since by MAN came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in ADAM all die, even so in CHRIST shall all be made alive." Romans v. 15, "If through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.' John viii. 40, But now ye seek to kill me, A MAN that hath told you the truth." See also Hebrews v. 1, &c. Such, besides, was the person whom God promised of old by the prophets; and such also does the Creed called the Apostles', which all Christians, in common with ourselves, embrace, declare him to be.

·

Was, then, the Lord Jesus a mere or common man ?

By no means because, first, though by nature he was a man, he was nevertheless, at the same time, and even from his earliest origin, the only begotten Son of God. For being conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin, without the intervention of any human being, he had properly no father besides God though considered in another light, simply according to the flesh, without respect to the Holy Spirit, of which he was conceived, and with which he was anointed, he had David for his father, and was therefore his son. Concerning his supernatural conception, the angel thus speaks to Mary, Luke i 35, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." Secondly, because, as Christ testifies of himself, he was sanctified and sent into the world by the Father; that is, being in a most remarkable manner separated from all other men, and, besides being distinguished by the perfect holiness of his life, endued with divine wisdom and power, was sent by the Father, with supreme authority, on an embassy to mankind. Thirdly, because, as the apostle Paul testifies, both in the Acts of the Apostles, and in his Epistle to the Romans, he was raised from the dead by God, and thus as it were begotten a second time ;-particularly as by this event he became like God immortal. Fourthly, because by his dominion and supreme authority over all things, he is made to resemble, or, indeed, to equal God: on which account, "a king anointed by God," and "Son of God," are used in several passages of Scripture as phrases of the same import. And the sacred author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. i. v. 5) shows from the words of the Psalmist (Psalm ii 7), "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," that Christ was glorified by God, in order that he might be made a Priest, that is, the chief director of our religion and salvation,-in which office are comprised his supreme authority and dominion. He was, however, not merely the only begotten Son of God, but also A GOD, on account of the divine power and authority which he displayed even while he was yet mortal: much more may he be so denominated

now that he has received all power in heaven and earth, and that all things, God himself alone excepted, have been put under his feet

But do you not acknowledge in Christ a divine, as well as a human nature or substance?

"If by the terms divine nature or substance I am to understand the very essence of God, I do not acknowledge such a divine nature in Christ; for this were repugnant both to right reason and to the Holy Scriptures. But if, on the other hand, you intend by a divine nature, the Holy Spirit which dwelt in Christ, united by an indissoluble bond, to his human nature, and displayed in him the wonderful effects of its extraordinary presence; or if you understand the words in the sense in which Peter employs them (2 Peter i. 4), when he asserts that "we are partakers of a divine nature," that is, endued by the favour of God with divinity, or divine properties,-1 certainly do so far acknowledge such a nature in Christ, as to believe, that next after God, it belonged to no one in a higher degree.' pp. 51-56.

As to the precise rank which our Saviour held from his nature, it is well known that unitarians of the present day differ in opinion. In England they appear generally to believe in his proper humanity, and so far, therefore, as this particular doctrine is concerned, may be classed with the old Socinians. But in this country a large proportion are supposed to lean towards the Arian hypothesis; and are, therefore, by no means to be confounded with a sect, that acknowledge neither our Lord's superior nature nor his pre-existence.

But the most remarkable, and indeed the distinguishing doctrine of Socinianism is that, which requires the worship of Christ. We shall state it in their own words, with its proper grounds and limitations.

'Whence do you prove that divine worship is due to Christ? 'Authorities for this are furnished by many passages of Scripture. For instance, Christ says (John v. 22, 23), "The Father hath committed all judgment" (all rule and government) "to the Son; that all men may honour the Son as they honour the Father." And (Philipp. ii. 9, 11) the apostle writes, "Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." It would appear also from these testimonies,—although there existed not, in so many words, an express command for adoring Christ, that that sublime sovereignty wherewith he has been invested by God requires from us the divine worship of him. For in every government honour is due from the subjects ;-in the

-