XVI. CENT moral system of that sect, and naturally leads its SECT. I. doctors to confine their rules of morality and virPART II tue to the external actions and duties of life. On the one hand, they deny the influence of a divine spirit and power upon the minds of men; and on the other, they acknowledge, that no mortal has such an empire over himself as to be able to suppress or extinguish his sinful propensities and corrupt desires. Hence they have no conclusion left, but one, and that is, to declare all such true and worthy Christians, whose words and external actions are conformable to the precepts of the Divine law. It is, at the same time, remarkable, that another branch of their doctrine leads directly to the utmost severity in what relates to life and manners, since they maintain, that the great end of CHRIST's mission upon earth was to exhibit to mortals a new law, distinguished from all others by its unblemished sanctity and perfection. Hence it is that a great number of the Socinians have fallen into the fanatical rigour of the ancient Anabaptists, and judged it absolutely unlawful to repeal injuries, to take oaths, to inflict capital punishments on malefactors, to oppose the despotic proceedings of tyrannical magistrates, to acquire wealth by honest industry, and other things of that nature. But, in this, there is something extremely singular, and they are here, indeed, inconsistent with themselves. For while, in matters of doctrine, they take the greatest liberty with the expressions of Scripture, and pervert them in a violent manner, to the defence of their peculiar tenets, they proceed quite otherwise, when they come to prescribe rules of conduct from the precepts of the Gospel; for then they understand these precepts literally, and apply them without the least distinction of times, persons, and circumstances. XIX. It XVI. The Cate XIX. It must carefully be observed, that the CENT. Catechism of Racow, which most people look upon SECT.III. as the great standard of Socinianism, and as an ac- PART II, curate summary of the doctrine of that sect, is, in reality, no more than a collection of the popular chism of tenets of the Socinians, and by no means a just Pacow. representation of the secret opinious and sentiments of their doctors [q]. The writings, therefore, of these learned men must be perused with attention, in order to our knowing the hidden reasons and true principles from whence the doctrines of the Catechism are derived. It is observable, besides, that, in this Catechism, many Socinian tenets and institutions, which might have contributed to render the sect still more odious, and to expose its internal constitution too much to public view, are entirely omitted; so that it seems to have been less composed for the use of the Socinians themselves, than to impose upon strangers, and to mitigate the indignation which the tenets of this community had excited in the minds of many [r]. Hence it never obtained, among the Socinians, the authority of a public confession or rule of faith; and hence the doctors of that sect were authorised to correct and contradict it, or to substitute another form of doctrine in its place. It is also observable, that the most eminent writers and patrons of the Socinians, give no clear or consistent account of the sentiments of that sect in relation [9] We have an account of the authors of this famous Catechism, and of the various success it met with, in the Commentatio de Catechesi Racoviensi, published by Jo. AsD. SemDIUS, in the year 1707. See also KOECHIERI Biblioth. Theolog. Symbolice.-A new edition of the Catechism itself, with a solid refutation of the doctrine it contains, was published in 8vo at. Francfort and Leipsick, in the year 1739, by the learned GEORGE LEWIS OEDER. [r] This appears evident enough from their presenting a Latin translation of this Catechism to JAMES 1. king of Great Britain, and a Germaa one to the academy of Wittemberg. XVI. CENT. relation to ecclesiastical discipline and governSECT. III. ment, and the form of public worship. All that PARTII. We know is, that they follow in these matters, generally speaking, the customs received in the protestant churches []. The state of XX. The first founders and patrons of this sect learning a- were eminently distinguished by their learning Suonians and genius., Their successors, however, did not mong the follow their steps in this respect, nor keep up the reputation they had universally obtained. The Unitarians in Poland seem to have had little ambition of science. They gave no encouragement to learning or talents; and appeared little solicitous of having in their community subtile doctors and learned disputants. But, when they perceived on the one hand, that the success of their community required as able defenders, as they had learned and ingenious adversaries; and were so lucky, on the other, as to obtain the privilege of erecting seminaries of learning at Racow and Lublin, they then changed their sentiments with respect to this matter, and became sensible of the necessity under which they lay, to encourage in their community a zeal for the sciences. This zeal increased greatly from the time that FAUSTUS SOCINUS undertook the restoration of their declining credit, and put himself at the head of their tottering sect. At that time many persons, distinguished by their birth, education, and talents, embraced [] This is manifest from a work composed by Peter Morscovius, or Morscowsky, under the following title; "Politia Ecclesiastica, quam vulgo Agenda vocant, sive forma Regiminis exterioris Ecclesiarum Christianarum in Polonia, quæ unum Deum Patrem, per filium ejus Unigenitum in Spiritu Sancto, comitentur." This work, which is divided into three books, was composed in the year 1642, and published in 4to at Nuremberg, Lut a few years ago, by the learned George Lewis Ceder. It is mentioned by Sandius, in his Biblioth. Anti-Trini. p. 142. who says that it was drawn up for the use of the Belgic churches. XVI. embraced its doctrine, and contributed to pro-CENT mote the love of science among its members. SECT. III. Then the youth were taught the rules of eloquence PART II. and rhetoric, and instructed in the important branches of Oriental, Greek, and Latin literature. Nay, even the secret paths of philosophy were opened, though their treasures were disclosed only to a few, who were selected, for that purpose, from the multitude. The Racovian doctors, in compliance with the spirit and taste of the age, chose ARISTOTLE as their guide in philosophy, as appears evidently from the Ethics of CRELLIUS, and other literary records of these times. XXI. Notwithstanding this progress of philo-Their mesophy among the Socinians, their doctors seemed thod of proceeding to reject its succours in theology with obstinacy in theolo and disdain. They declare, in numberless places gy of their writings, that both in the interpretation of scripture, and in explaining and demonstrating the truth of religion in general, clearness and simplicity are alone to be consulted, and no regard paid to the subtilties of philosophy and logic. And, indeed, had their doctors and interpreters followed in practice, this rule that they have laid down with so much ostentation in theory, they would have saved their adversaries, and perhaps themselves, much trouble. But this is by no means the case. For, in the greatest part of their theological productions, their pretended simplicity is frequently accompanied with much subtility, and with the most refined intricacies of scientific art. And, what is still more inexcusable, they reason with the greatest dexterity and acuteness concerning those subjects, which (as they surpass the reach of the human understanding) are generally, received, among other Christians, as facts confirmed by the most respectable testimony, and consequently as matters of pure faith, while they discover little sagacity, or strength of judg ment, 2 XVI. CEN T.ment, in those discussions which are within the SECT. III. Sphere of reason, and are properly amenable to PART II. its tribunal. They are acute where they ought to be silent, and they reason awkwardly where sagacity and argument are required. These are certainly great inconsistencies; yet they proceed from one and the same principle, even the maxim universally received in this community, that all things that surpass the limits of human comprehension are to be entirely banished from the Christian religion. XXII. It has been already observed, that the sions of the Unitarians had no sooner separated themselves Socinians, from the Reformed churches in Poland, than they intestine became a prey to intestine divisions, and were controver- split into several factions. The points of doc The divi and their trine that gave rise to these divisions, related to the dignity of CHRIST'S nature and character, the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism, the personality of the Holy-Ghost, to which were added several alterations, concerning the duties of life, and the rules of conduct that were obligatory on Christians. The sects, produced by these divisions, were not all equally obstinate. Some of them entertained pacific dispositions, and seemed inclined towards a reconciliation. But two, particularly, maintained tenaciously their sentiments, and persisted in their separation; these were the Budnæans and the Farnovians. The former were so called from Budnæans. their leader SIMON BUDNEUS, a man of considerable acuteness and sagacity, who, more dexterous than the rest of his brethren in deducing consequences from their principles, and perceiving plainly the conclusions to which the peculiar principles of LELIUS SOCINUS naturally led, denied flatly all kinds of religious worship to JESUS CHRIST. Nor did BUDNÆUS stop here; in order to give a more specious colour to this capital error, and to maintain it upon consistent grounds, he asserted that CHRIST was not begotten by an extrordinary |