second causes, so that he is able to act only as they act; but as a perfectly free agent, sustaining them in existence, and with consummate wisdom accommodating his agency to the nature of the case, not only giving efficacy to second causes, but also, when he chooses, counteracting them. Thus, though he upholds the laws of nature by which corporeal things are governed, yet we find him ordering the sun to become retrograde, and the clouds to withhold the rain for three years, and then suddenly sent plentiful showers. And we know that although God sustains second causes, He is not confined to them, for every day events occur which are out of the sphere of their operation. In the midst of battle, and on the seas, and in diseases, many are delivered from various dangers when second causes can be of no avail.

We ought not, therefore, to entertain the opinion of the Stoics, that God is confined to second causes so as never to act independently of them, but we should believe that he is always present with the work of his hands, sustaining all things by his power, and governing all events by his own most perfect freedom; so that there is good ground for praying for his aid and interposition in any emergency. Thus God not only sustains, but willingly helps those who act in an orderly manner; but in regard to those who act disorderly, although he upholds these also, yet he cannot be said to aid them in doing wrong. Eve was so constituted and endowed with free will, that she had it in her power either to obey or to transgress, and the existence of divine favour, as the first cause, did not make God the author of her sin. It is indeed universally true, that the second cause cannot act without the sustaining power of the first; but, as was before observed, this upholding providence must be carefully distinguished from that exercise of power which assists in the production of the sinful act; for that effect which God does not will, he never aids the creature to bring into being. If any one inquire, therefore, what was the immediate cause of the sin of Eve when she turned herself away from God, the answer must be, her own free will. The maxim, that the second cause cannot act without the first, although admitted by all, is very differently understood by the Stoic and by the Christian. The former believes that in similar circumstances the same effects must necessarily take place; but the latter makes an important distinction between good and evil actions, which the Stoic entirely overlooks. It is true that the second cause cannot act without the first, that is, unless it is sustained by the first; but this does not hinder the first cause from acting, when it seems good, without the second, because he is a perfectly free agent; and when the second cause is a free agent it acts without the co-operation of the first in the production of evil, for the power of originating such acts belongs essentially to that liberty with which free agents are endued. In this explanation I have endeavoured to avoid too much refinement, and to present the subject in such a manner as to be level to the common apprehensions of men. Others, however, choose to

explain this matter a little differently. They say that the second cause cannot act without the first, in producing a positive effect; but in a mere delinquency, or defect of right action, the second cause can act alone. For example, the will of Eve in the first transgression did not produce a positive effect, but was an aberration from the proper mark, defect in the quality of the act. This explanation does not really differ from the one already given, and may seem to render it more perspicuous. But after all it is best to believe in the general, that God has established such a connexion between the first and second cause, as he acting freely chooses should exist; so that while he co-operates to sustain the creature,. He is not the author of sin.

ESSAY X.

DOCTRINES OF THE EARLY SOCINIANS.

PUBLISHED IN 1833.

Ir is known to all students of ecclesiastical history, that Poland, and the neighbouring states of Transylvania, Bohemia, and Hungary, were the theatre of the Unitarian churches, during a considerable part of the sixteenth century. The reason why the propagators of heresy chose this region, for the dissemination of their opinions, is easily explained. In all other countries of Europe, they were restrained by the laws, but here liberty of conscience was enjoyed. It may also be mentioned, that with the doctrines of the Reformation was introduced a spirit of free, unshackled inquiry into all opinions; and as was natural, from the imbecility of man, this liberty degenerated into licentiousness, and frequently terminated in downright infidelity. At first, the heterodox of Poland professed to be either Arians or Sabellians; they did not, indeed, adopt these denominations, but they held the opinions which are commonly so denominated. There were, however, numerous shades of difference among these Unitarians, and they separated into a great number of petty sects, which were usually denominated from the town or province in which the leading members respectively resided. One writer asserts, that at a particular time, about the middle of the sixteenth century, the number of Unitarian sects was above thirty, but he does not inform us in what points they differed from each other.* According to the custom of the times, many public disputations were held, and many synods were convened, by which means it was attempted, but unsuccessfully, to settle the points in controversy between the Trinitarians and Anti-Trinitarians.

In the midst of this confusion of sects and prevalence of heresy, Faustus Socinus visited the country. His uncle, Laelius Socinus, had been there many years before; but though he left his opinions as an inheritance to his nephew, he was himself either too timid

Maimbourg.

or too prudent to avow and defend the Unitarian opinions which he held. But Faustus, with equal talents and address, possessed that courage which is requisite to appear openly as the advocate of unpopular tenets. When he first came to Poland, all parties seemed to be afraid of him; for they were aware that he had pushed his Unitarianism to consequences which they were not prepared to admit. None of the sects were disposed, therefore, to receive Socinus into their communion. No doubt he was displeased at being expelled from the communion of Unitarians; but he disguised his feelings, and artfully turned all to his own advantage. He now professed an unwillingness to be connected with any particular sect, but declared himself to be the friend of all; and by intercourse with the leading ministers and teachers, he in a short time brought them all into one harmonious body, and induced them to embrace his peculiar opinions, which have ever. since been called SOCINIANISM. One dispute, however, arose, which Socinus, with all his address, could never bring to a favourable conclusion. Francis Davidis, a man of learning and abilities, who had passed through many changes of theological opinion, was a leading minister among the Unitarians in Transylvania, and now began to teach and preach, that Jesus Christ being a mere man, had no more claim to divine worship than any other saint; a most legitimate conclusion from the acknowledged premises. But the broaching of this doctrine excited much uneasiness and alarm. Blandrat, who was now physician to the young prince Sigismund II., over whom he had a decisive influence, sent to Poland for Socinus, as being the only man who, by his skill and address in managing men, would be likely to prevail with Davidis to renounce his dangerous opinion. Accordingly Socinus came, and for several months was lodged in the same house with the heretic, as he was considered by the Unitarians. But all his arguments and persuasions were ineffectual to convince Davidis of his being in an error. How could they, when the doctrine which he held is so manifestly correct upon Unitarian principles, that it is probable there is not now a Unitarian in the world who does not adopt the opinion of Davidis as correct, and dissent from that of Socinus as most unreasonable? But light does not break upon the world all at once. Even Unitarians may for a while remain in gross error and idolatry; and what to their successors is still more mortifying, they may proceed so far as to persecute those who differ from them. The young prince of Transylvania was induced to cast Davidis into prison simply on account of his pertinacious adherence to his opinion. Here the persecuted man died. We ought not, however, to be too severe in our censures of such conduct; for the doctrine of toleration was not yet well understood, even by those who pleaded for it in their own case, when they needed its shelter. We think that this case may fairly be placed as a parallel to that of Calvin. It is not clear, however, that Socinus advised this measure, although it is very certain

that Blandrat directed the whole affair, as in all religious matters the prince was governed by him. So far as Socinus's own declaration will go to exculpate him from all concern in this transaction, we must acquit him of being accessory to the death of this learned man; for we recollect to have seen in some history of the churches in Poland, that when at a large synod Socinus was accused of participating in the persecution of Davidis, he publicly denied that he had advised his imprisonment, or had any concern in the matter. But although the leading advocate of the obnoxious opinion was thus put out of the way, the doctrine of Davidis prevailed more and more. Socinus not only never changed his opinion respecting the worship of Christ, but he would hold no communion with any one who denied that Christ should be worshipped, and publicly taught and published the opinion that those who received the doctrine of Davidis, had no just claim to the name of Christians.

The Unitarians of Poland cultivated biblical learning with assiduity and no small success, as appears from the volumes entitled "Poloni Fratres," &c. Most of the writings of Faustus Socinus were at first anonymous; and he strongly expressed his opinion in favour of that mode of publication, because men are so prone to be influenced in forming their opinions, by prejudices arising from the name of the author. His principal work was on the person and offices of Christ, entitled "DE CHRISTO." It was in answer to a treatise in support of the divinity of Christ, written in the Polish language, by a Jesuit, whose name was Wiek. This work of the Pole was, indeed, nothing else than the treatise of Bellarmin on the deity of the Saviour, translated into the Polish tongue. Socinus's book received many answers, of which it is not our purpose at present to speak. The Racovian Catechism, of which we propose to treat somewhat particularly in this article, received its name from the town of Racow, where it was first published. It was not written by Socinus, nor published during his life, but was compiled by SMALCIUS, from his writings, and at first appeared in the Polish language, A. D. 1606. It was not long, however, before this Catechism was published in Latin by MoSCOROVIUS; and also in the German language, by Smalcius himself, who sent a copy of it to the professors of Wittenberg. Among the fathers in this cradle of the reformation, it was a matter of serious deliberation whether an answer should be given to it or not. At length, however, it was determined that it would not be expedient to neglect it, lest the Socinians should consider silence as a sign that they had achieved a victory, and should be led vainly to triumph in the strength of their career. In conformity with the resolution now adopted, a pious and solid theologian, Frederick Baldwin, was requested to undertake a refutation of this Catechism. An able answer was also published by that consummate theologian, Wolfgang Crellius. The attentive reader will be in no danger of confounding this orthodox theologian with another of the same name greatly