Omnipotent Sweetness? Puritanism Versus Socinianism

By Joel M. Heflin [1]

One of the fiercest theological rivalries in seventeenth-century England was between the Puritans and the Socinians. [2] The Socinians were immediately received as heretics and in most cases their books were destroyed almost as fast as they could be printed. Socinianism would eventually birth Unitarianism and contribute significantly to religious freedom (latitudinarianism) in England. E.M. Wilbur’s fine treatment on the history of Unitarianism laments the quality of research done on Socinianism due largely to the scarcity of primary source materials available to researchers, many of which lay inaccessible in Eastern European special collections or were destroyed in the World Wars. Even in the seventeenth century, students were forbidden to possess Socinian works if they could be found; only a few titles were cataloged in private libraries in the 1630s — and, if available, they were very expensive.

Time has been more generous to Puritan studies, although it has suffered its own caricatures. Recently, Puritan writings have enjoyed a wider circulation than ever before; seven hundred of their books have been reprinted in the last fifty years. [3] The Puritans inherited the reputation of being staunch predestinarians, espousing a form of Calvinism that has been criticized as fatalism or “God’s lottery.” The Socinians themselves believed that predestination was a terrible mistake and contrary to the universal spirit of the Bible. The Puritans, however, did not sit on their hands waiting for salvation, but labored tirelessly in the press and the pulpit to expound the message of the gospel. The Puritan movement was pastoral, leaving behind a massive body of literature, primarily sermons and expositions of Scripture.

The Puritan and Socinian debate presided largely over the biblical views of God’s attribute of foreknowledge and election. The Socinians held that God did not have foreknowledge of all future contingencies, especially human free will; otherwise, there would be no need for prayer, repentance, and piety. This implies that God’s decree of salvation is an a posteriori plan to grant eternal life to those who repent in Christ’s name, not knowing who will be saved until the final judgment. The Puritans believed that God elected a certain number of humanity to eternal life prior to creation out of sheer love and grace. The basis for this claim is God’s perfection in knowledge, justice, and mercy; if God is not all-knowing or all-powerful, He is unable to satisfy justice, provide mercy, or exercise providence over His creation. To the victor go the spoils, so to speak, over the correct biblical view of God’s character and nothing less than eternal salvation.

This article will assess the Socinian and Puritan theology of God’s attributes and defend the Puritan view as the more scripturally consistent of the two. To achieve this goal, we will compare and contrast these respective approaches to Scripture, God’s nature and attributes, and election from early Puritan and Socinian writings in English, [4] making use of polemical works when necessary for developing the argument, though they are notoriously one-sided and written from a uniform perspective. I aim to demonstrate three main things. One, that Puritan and Socinian methods of biblical interpretation were predicated on standard practices of doctrinal, grammatical, and narrative criticism. Two, how the Socinians seek to remove all traditional doctrine of God by reading its doctrine strictly out of Scripture, whereas Puritan theology balances its scriptural views with orthodoxy. Finally, that the Puritans are able to defend their position against the Socinian charge of inconsistency.

Puritan And Socinian Views Of Scripture

The Puritans and Socinians placed a high value on Scripture, believing it to be the inspired Word of God. Each assumed that Scripture was the epistemological basis for theology, the authoritative guide for the church, and the rule of faith for all believers. They also held the principle that Scripture is internally coherent, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and must be interpreted according to its own authority. The point of departure begins with how one ascribes authority to Scripture, which in turn affects how one interprets it. Faustus Socinus (1539 –1604) validates Scripture authority on the credentials of its authors and the tradition through which it is received. On the other hand, Puritans like Thomas Goodwin argue that Scripture’s inherent authority does not depend on traditional reception. [5] If Scripture is received by tradition, it is interpreted by reason; if by its own authority, then faith through the guidance of the Holy Spirit receives its message. After comparing some key conceptual issues in the Socinian and Puritan approaches to Scripture, we will evaluate the outcome in their respective views of God and His attributes.

The Socinian emphasis on reason underscores their whole interpretive system of Scripture and view of salvation. They presuppose that divine revelation is received through reason, which is the touchstone for interpreting Scripture. Socinus’s grandson, Andrew Wiszowaty (d. 1678), assumes reason underlies biblical authority as the means through which the apostles and Bereans interpreted Scripture (Acts 17:11). [6] John Crellius (1590-1633) asserts that “mysteries indeed exceed reason, but do not overthrow it,” whereby all revelation comes through propositions, “which only reason can supply.” [7] These mysteries, or obscure and difficult passages of Scripture, are simply approached through comparative analysis with clear passages until those interpretations that are “repugnant to reason” can be rejected. This rule applies to all portions of Scripture save the Prophets, who are to be interpreted by divine aid (Racovian Catechism, 18, 19). [8]

Viscount Falkland (1610-1643) used this rational approach to criticize papal authority over the interpretation of Scripture, asserting confidently that God “will either give His grace…to find the truth, or His pardon if they miss it.” [9] On the ground of rationalism, anyone can discover the way of eternal life, so long as Scripture is interpreted according to sound critical practice.

Socinus’s book, An Argument for the Authority of Holy Scripture, is indicative of the methodology for biblical interpretation underlying the Racovian Catechism. [10] Socinus sets out to show that Scripture authority is established on four principles: the author’s credentials and method, the author’s identity, the possibility of textual corruption, and the testimony of tradition. [11] Moses’ credibility, to whom Socinus appeals throughout, is granted on the subjective basis that he wrote what “he perfectly knew to be true,” and was not “notoriously given to lying.” [12] At first glance this sounds pedestrian, but Socinus is assuming that divine revelation begins with Moses, little or nothing having gone before. Thomas Lushington’s (1590-1661) exposition of Hebrews 1:1 confirms the Socinian position that God did not speak or “declare his will and…promises” to the Patriarchs, only to Moses and the Prophets. [13] It is possible the Socinians were attempting to undercut the Reformed position that holds canonical authority begins with Moses, although oral tradition was important up to that time. [14] Reformed theologians such as Wolfgang Musculus and Henry Bullinger assumed that if God’s grace was not transmitted until Moses, it would undermine the covenantal promise of the Son. [15] It is more likely the Socinians denied pre-Mosaic revelation to support the view of God’s absolute dominion. Volkelius (d. 1618), for example, denies that God potentially rewarded obedience with eternal life in Adam’s time, but instead only threatened punishment to show His absolute Lordship (Gen. 2:17). [16] For Socinus, faith begins with granting the credibility of Scripture as the only source of eternal salvation, which far outweighs any minor corruption found in the written transmission of the text.

Socinus affirms it is “not likely” that God should allow corruptions in the text, due to His infinite goodness and providence. [17] Socinus again appeals to traditional reception, from which disputed authorship for books such as Hebrews and 2 Peter owe their place in the canon. This is no problem for Puritans like Thomas Watson (d. 1686) who identify the validity of Scripture on its antiquity and miraculous preservation, albeit without any corruption, “in the original tongue.” [18] Socinus, on the other hand, grants that there are some discrepancies and errors in transmission of the Old and New Testaments, particularly the Old. The drift of Socinus’s defense of canonical authority favors the New Testament as the most important installment of divine revelation, containing all the promises needed to embrace salvation. For Socinus, all the promises of Messiah in the Old Testament have long been fulfilled, leaving its relevance to serve as support for the New, a view that leans toward Marcionism.

The Puritans use the term “mystery” to describe the transmission and reception of Scripture as the Word of God. (The term is not used in the Pauline sense for the gospel (Eph. 3:3), but to safeguard against presuming in areas of reality where the truth is not fully revealed, such as election and reprobation. [19]) Prescribing syllogistic arguments into Scripture was often decried by Puritans such as Robert Browne (c. 1550-1633) as “vaine logike,” producing only “foolish toyes, profaine fables” and “rotten Diuinitie” that cannot comprehend the knowledge of God. [20] In a more objective and sympathetic tone, Goodwin commends the universal scope of the Socinians; yet he insists Scripture is not intended to satisfy intellectual speculation, but is intended to convey spiritual truths to the elect. Reason is subservient to, not the judge of, gospel content. [21] “Though there be a kind of natural Theology,” says William Jenkyn, “yet there’s no natural Christianity.” [22] The knowledge of God can only be revealed by God Himself, which is not contrary to reason but above it. [23] If the fact of Christianity is granted on the basis of its self-disclosure, why can’t it be understood by reason alone? The Puritans would say there is more at stake than just the mind.

Reason assents to the truth of Scripture, but its message is not realized until the Holy Spirit imparts faith and is actualized in the affections. Thomas Manton (1620 –1677) makes three distinctions in the act of faith: knowledge, assent, and assistance. Scripture has a model of knowledge (Rom. 2:20) but requires the assistance of the Spirit for illumination to move beyond its formal apprehension for actual use and spiritual practice. Manton dichotomizes “assent” as granting the inherent divine authority of Scripture and then receiving or consenting to its doctrines of the Trinity, Christ’s two natures, the “mystery of redemption,” etc., as the articles of faith needed for eternal life. [24] The act of assent, as prompted by the Spirit, produces assurance of faith if Scripture’s doctrine is consented to with the whole will. Manton understands the will to include the mind and affections, which is why reason isn’t enough to move the will to action or produce moral conviction. Thus the Holy Spirit must initiate faith in “the rich offers of grace in the Lord Jesus Christ” as the greatest object one can possibly behold.25 If belief requires more than rational consent, it is a mistake to define faith as a purely intellectual act; belief includes judgments comprised of the senses, soul, impressions both internal and external, and reason itself, which can be lost on false appearances. For the Puritans, faith is a “whole hearted” consent to the Scriptures, initiated by the Spirit to discern the truth of God in the person and promises of Jesus Christ. [26]

So far, both the Puritans and Socinians assume that Scripture is the divine revelation of God but emphasize two distinct epistemologies when approaching its meaning: rationalism and the “mystery” (assent) of faith. The Socinians are building their system of doctrine from an inductive approach to Scripture, having discounted traditional Orthodox interpretation as an easy out from unprejudiced investigation. At the same time, they extol the traditional reception of Scripture as the basis for its credibility and authority. This creates a serious dilemma for their position: how can one simultaneously reject and confirm the traditional foundation supporting Scripture? The Puritans hold that revelation is supernatural, above reason, and therefore has to be taken reverently within the pale of orthodoxy. This sounds as if God remains unknowable and unapproachable despite the Scripture revelation of His existence and offer of grace. Addressing these dilemmas respectively depends on how one appropriates positive and negative statements regarding God’s nature. After a brief sketch of negative theology, we will see how it affects the biblical view of God’s essence and attributes within Puritan and Socinian theology.

Negative Theology And God’s Being

Christian theology in the Patristic era pursued two theological methods when discussing and defending the attributes of God: the positive or kataphatic tradition of the West and the apophatic tradition of the Eastern church. The former emphasizes the revelation of God before discussing how the knowledge of God is ascertained, whereas the latter starts with the image of God in the soul and works out toward the idea of God. [27] Negative terms for the divine attributes, such as impassibility and incomprehensibility, are stock and trade for classical theism; one can only say what God is not, for He is beyond all comparison. Positive descriptions are possible, such as “God is light,” and “God is love,” but are deemed inadequate to represent God’s essence. [28] Novatian (210-280 A.D.), for example, asserts that predicates such as light, strength, and majesty do not declare who God is, but only describe His power or honor. [29] Similarly, Joseph Caryl thinks that all created light is insufficient to express the glory of God’s majesty— one reason why biblical imagery often conveys God speaking from the darkness (Job 38:1; Deut. 5:23; Nah. 1:3, cf. Ps. 36). [30] The Socinians criticize the use of negative language as borrowing from Platonic philosophy and wholly inadequate to represent scriptural concepts. [31] If God can be positively known, argue the Socinians, Scripture must be emancipated from these rudiments of a by-gone era. If, however, God is essentially unknowable, as the Puritans argue, is the criticism valid? The answer is complicated.

The issue of borrowed terms and concepts presents an enormous challenge on all sides, and scholars following the Medieval Scholastics were busy removing unbiblical and unnecessary terms from Christian doctrine. The Socinians argue that the encroaching orthodox terms for God’s attributes had destroyed the true meaning of His unity and had grossly misrepresented Christ’s divinity as well. If God is going to be ascertained, then He must be understood according to His positive attributes of dominion, justice, mercy, etc. The Puritans held that God’s attributes must be studied with the understanding that He is above comprehension. The problem of the negative and positive theological statements of God is the hinge upon which the possibility of the Trinity or God’s unity turns.

The Puritans believed that positive and negative statements had to be harmonized to present a cohesive theology of God’s attributes. Stephen Charnock (1628 –1682) affirms that negative assertions better understand who God is by removing inconsistencies so positive statements can declare His greatness. For example, the statement “God is spirit” (John 4:24) is a negative assertion; God is not a spirit, but infinitely greater. [32] The Socinians believe that God has a spiritual substance identical with or similar to air, which argues a corporal nature, “though it be a thin one.” [33] The statement, “God is spirit” accommodates the limited understanding of the human mind while also ascribing the honor due to God’s nature. Likewise, when God appears to the Patriarchs in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:1; Isa. 6:1), the idea conveyed a special manifestation of His providence, but not His essence. [34] His essence is therefore infinite (2 Chron. 2:6) and, if He were not spirit, He could not be omnipotent, omniscient, or independent from time and place.

The Socinian view embraces God’s nature is unity rather than trinity. They explain God’s nature as an all-powerful will or absolutum dominum, meaning total dominion. God’s dominion is “A right and supreme authority to determine whatever he may choose (and he cannot choose what is in its own nature evil and unjust) in respect to us and to all other things, and also in respect to those matters which no other authority can reach…such as our thoughts…for which he can at pleasure ordain laws, and appoint rewards and punishments” (Racovian Catechism, 25).

According to this definition, one may acquire the positive knowledge of God when apprehending His existence, eternality, justice, wisdom, and power. Conversely, God is not three persons because “there cannot be more beings than one who possess supreme dominion.” [35] All other views of God, especially the Trinity, “are contrary to the way of salvation” because they promote idolatry. [36] To prove their assertions, the Socinians proceed to radically re-conceptualize the divinity of the Son and Spirit as well as the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and providence. [37] To illustrate, we will bring John Crellius’s polemical work on God’s unity into dialogue with Stephen Charnock’s lectures on the knowledge of God; each is a doctrinal exposition of John 17:3, a highly controversial passage in the debate at large. After contrasting the views of God’s nature in the works of Crellius and Charnock respectively, we will proceed to demonstrate the Socinian view of God’s foreknowledge, providence, and election, followed by the Puritan view and response.

Puritan And Socinian Views Of God’s Nature

One of the foremost polemical writings on God’s nature from the Socinian position is John Crellius’s Two Books Touching One God the Father, first published in Latin in 1631 and translated by John Biddle in 1665. [38] Crellius was a renowned scholar in his day and, according to John Owen, possessed great diligence and learning “in one of the worst of causes.” [39] Crellius’s argument consists of a three part syllogism taken from John 17:3 to prove there are not three “Most High Gods,” only God the Father. He maintains that God cannot be three persons in one essence and that Christ and the Holy Spirit are therefore not co-eternal. If his argument is valid, orthodox Trinitarians are rendered inconsistent in their formula of three persons in one essence.

Crellius excludes all persons from the Godhead except the Father. “For it would be thus,” he argues, “if it should by way of syllogism be proposed: some different from the Father of Jesus Christ, are not the true God.” [40] If the Father is “Most High,” there cannot be three “Most High Gods” because three persons cannot share one essence. Crellius’s argument proceeds on John 17:3, wherein Christ affirms that the Father is the only true God. Christ is excluding the possibility of “heathen idols” and persons such as Peter, Gabriel, Michael, even Himself, from the Godhead. The bulk of Crellius’s supporting texts emphasizing the subordination of the Son to the Father could be seen as little more than proof texts to support his thesis. [41] He does, however, make a fairly strong argument from John 5:19, 20: “The Son can do nothing of himself.” If Christ were co-eternal, argues Crellius, then there would be no need of instruction or observation of the Father’s wisdom and power: “Whence we [Socinians] argue thus; if Christ did therefore deny, that he can to do any thing of himself, because he received from the Father by eternal generation, a Power of doing all things; it would follow that the Father had by that generation shewn him all things.” [42]

Christ partook of God’s essence, omnipotence, and all other attributes, but they were conveyed to Him after His natural birth. Crellius is suggesting that if two persons are co-equal and co-eternal, why are so many qualifications of Christ’s person scattered throughout the New Testament?

Crellius’s view of God holds that Christ’s divinity is dependent on the Father. [43] Christ and the Spirit are divine only in the same sense as three senators form a senate. [44] This sounds as if God is supreme authority and not a person, but Crellius allows for God’s personhood elsewhere. [45] For Crellius, the title “Most High God” cannot be ascribed to the Son and Spirit due to the distinction between person and essence.

Charnock’s argument from John 17 proceeds from the context of Christ’s prayer: the glorification of His deity and humanity as mediator. [46] At the head of His prayer, Christ addresses God as “Father,” not “our Father,” demonstrating His natural sonship. [47] The petition, “glorify thy son” signifies the Son’s co-eternal deity through the resurrection. Christ’s speech does not detract from His essential attributes as God, as Crellius suggests, but is declarative in that the revelation of God through redemption would break into the world and dispel universal idolatry. The sense of the passage is not excluding persons from the Godhead but demonstrating that Christ, in His humanity and deity, is linked with the essence of the Father. As Charnock says, “unless the humanity had been glorified by a Resurrection, there would have been no assurance that the debt had been satisfied, and no sure ground of Faith.... And unless [Christ’s] Divine Nature had been manifested in the mission of the Spirit, and the collation of miraculous gifts; there had been no foundation for the propagation of the Doctrine of Redemption, and so that glorious work had lain wrapt up from humane view.” [48] God’s attributes of justice and mercy, which the natural world cannot disclose, are culminated and revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

Crellius has argued that the clause in verse 3, “the only true God,” presents a complication to Christ’s deity. If Christ acknowledges God to be the only true God, then He is not co-eternal with the Father. Crellius’s suggestion that Christ was made God at a later time is for Charnock “as great nonsense as to say an uncreated creature,” and a contradiction in terms. [49] Charnock reconciles the problem, showing that the word “only” (movnon) can be translated “one” (i.e., “the one true God”) excluding false gods and idols, which Crellius has affirmed as well. The term “only” does not always exclude, but can be inclusive as well. God swears none will enter Canaan save Caleb, yet Joshua is not excluded (Deut. 1:35, 36). If someone is famous for his trade, the expression “he is the only man in London” does not exclude other tradesmen or inhabitants. [50] Christ was in the form of God (Phil. 2:6) prior to His humanity although He was inferior to God in the human nature. The drift of Charnock’s argument echoes Basil’s logic for the co-equality of the Spirit: “For absolute and real co-existence is predicated in the case of things which are mutually inseparable.” [51] Christ’s nature did not cease to be divine following the virgin birth: the essence of the Father is the essence of the Son. [52] Christ could not be made God after His birth, resurrection, and ascension because He was essentially God prior to these events.

Crellius would view Charnock’s argument of the eternal generation of the Son as incoherent on three counts. First, if God were able to communicate some of His attributes to a person, there would be communicable and incommunicable attributes in an absolute being, which is inconsistent. [53] Second, if Christ was essentially God prior to being “begotten,” He would have generated Himself from His own essence and would be a mediator to Himself. [54] Finally, if God could communicate His “substance” to another person, Christ would have had non-being prior to being—assuming Christ was born in time and the attribute of eternality is incommunicable. [55] Crellius concludes at length that three persons sharing the attributes of omnipotence, eternity, and infinity would necessarily be expressed in the plural (eternals, infinites), which cannot be said of a supreme being.

Undeterred, Charnock concludes that the nature and attributes of the Father are also attributed to the Son and Spirit. Christ has “power…to give eternal life” and an infinite power cannot be given to a finite being (cf. Heb. 5:9). [56] God’s nature and attributes are fully culminated and revealed in Christ: holiness, justice, mercy, veracity, patience, longsuffering, wisdom, power, “whatsoever distinction they have in themselves meet all in him.” [57] In Christ are divine attributes that are not revealed in nature or reason alone, because the natural world is incapable of displaying attributes of mercy or redemption. He displays the accomplishment of God’s justice in atoning for sin and mercy in the pardoning of sin through the transaction of His passion. [58] Christ is the demonstration of God’s patience in waiting until the appropriate time to fulfill all righteousness and His holiness and goodness in condemning sin and delivering His people from it (Isa. 48:9; 1 John 1:9; Gal. 3:13; John 1:16). The Son and the Spirit present a complete picture of God’s attributes in the economy of redemption, which cannot be demonstrated from the natural world.

Summary

Crellius is a forceful writer, putting forward a clear and plausible argument that three persons cannot share the same essence and have equal being, especially if that being is Absolute. Charnock’s defense of the Scripture term “only” is consistent when applied to Joshua and Caleb, but somewhat weaker when supporting the relationship between the Father and the Son. Also, Crellius overemphasizes that attributes of a trinity of persons need to be expressed in the plural. Accordingly, if Christ was given all the attributes of God co-equally, even after a point in time, He would be eternally co-equal ever after, rendering the Socinian emphasis on His subordination a moot point. Again, it begs the question, how can God continue to be unity after the addition of a person who shares omnipotence? Charnock’s view that a finite person could not take on infinite attributes is more consistent than his Socinian counterpart.

The Eternal Decrees Of God: The Socinian View

In this section, we will look at the Socinian view of God’s decree of salvation from the Racovian Catechism and a few key exegetical writings, primarily the English translations of Crellius’s commentaries on Hebrews and Galatians. The Socinians allege that the Puritan view of predestination is incoherent on two grounds. First, they claim it makes God unjust in punishing the innocent. Second, it is incompatible with human free will; if God decreed to exercise punitive justice on the reprobate prior to creation, argue the Socinians, He would be the author of sin on the grounds that sin would precede the decree for damnation. [59] This is not what the Puritans are saying, but the Socinian position is clear: God cannot foreknow contingent acts that are acted in freedom, including belief. To establish and maintain this view, the Socinians redefined many biblical terms, such as “elect” and “predestined” to mean those “who give their assent to the Gospel,” and not those chosen by God before the creation of the world. [60] Who these people are or will be is unknown to God, save a handful of individuals that accomplish and mediate His will. Can the Socinians make a compelling case against the Puritans?

The Socinians assert that the eternal decrees of God concern things a posteriori to Him and are not essential to His knowledge. This brought the charge from Reformed theologians such as Francis Turretin (1623-1687) that God’s counsel is accidental to Him, not essentially so. [61] Puritans such as John Owen, as we shall see later in more detail, held that God’s knowledge and counsel are essential to Himself; otherwise, He is not perfect and blessed forever. The Socinians openly conceded Turretin’s charge as the only way in which positive knowledge of God is embraced as true. [62] An a posteriori view of election supports the assertion that salvation is predicated on the ethical values presented in the Decalogue, which is essential to Socinian piety. [63] Predestination simply means that one should hear or read Scripture and confirm its truth. The sense given to the phrase, “hath heard, and hath learned of the Father” (John 6:45) is “nothing more than to hear and to be taught” God’s Word, against the Puritan notion that salvation is initiated or imparted exclusively by God. [64] It is beginning to sound as if God’s decrees are made in time and not established in eternity, but this is only the beginning.

The Socinian critique of the Puritan view of election hammers on two main points. First, they allege the Puritans deny free will and the efforts of Christians to maintain piety. Second, it would be incompatible with God’s benevolent and righteous nature to assume He would punish sin without regard to the freedom of the creature. The Socinians explain biblical passages asserting particular redemption and foreknowledge (e.g., David in Psalm 139:15 –16 and Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11-13) as specific only to those individuals; they are not types or examples of election, but the terminus ad quem of God’s will to those individuals. Likewise, Adam’s sin and punishment (Gen. 3) is specific to him, not as a representative of humanity before God. Despite Adam’s fall from grace, “the nature of man is by no means so deprived as [to be] deprived of the liberty and power of obeying or not obeying God,” meaning humanity has free choice regardless of inherent depravity. [65] Once the gospel is published, everyone is left to “his own will to join the body of believers or of unbelievers: for otherwise [God] could not, with justice, punish anyone because he had not believed.” [66] In this case, divine justice is blind, eternally anticipating whatever falls out in the free will of the creature.

In order to carry out His will in redemption, God predestined the man Jesus Christ to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, yet He did not exist prior to His birth. [67] This conceptually removes predestination and election occurring in Christ’s person from eternity, although Socinus grants that He has a “limited foreknowledge” pertaining to the present state of the church. [68] Christ could know all things if God willed it, just as Christ’s dominion is limited to the church; otherwise infidels would be saved. [69] The Socinian Christology basically asserts that Christ’s mission is to reestablish the law in an effort to motivate and encourage believers to divine worship. In an effort to express His desire for true spiritual worship ( John 4:24), God the Father predetermined to unite or impart His nature with the human nature of Christ as an expression of His “most tender and benevolent affection towards us.” [70] For the Socinians, God’s act of uniting His nature to Christ after His ascension into heaven is the foundation for assurance of faith—a signal demonstration of the hope of the resurrection unto eternal life, available for all who accept Christ’s teaching.

Thomas Lushington’s enlarged translations of John Crellius’s commentaries on Galatians and Hebrews provide a more detailed model of Socinian exegesis for this present study. Lushington’s exposition of Galatians 1:4 is indicative of the Socinian view of the efficient cause of salvation for sinners—God’s last will and testament is the New Testament. [71] God’s will is positively described under three heads: affects, decrees, and purposes. These encompass His love, mercy, grace, promises, judgments, precognition, and predestination, all of which are represented in His ordained testament and various covenants. [72] Accordingly, God’s will is not revealed anywhere in the Old Testament, except once (Ezek. 7:18), but is everywhere revealed in the New Testament. Lushington asserts that Christ’s death was preordained mainly to ratify and confirm the New Testament, which indirectly provides atonement: “For the forgivenesse of our sinnes is not the sole act or deede of Christ, but prinicipally of God the Father, unto whom Christ is therein Ministeriall, receiving power and command from his Father, to performe all acts conducting to that effect.” [73] Christ died for no other reason because under the Old Testament there was no promise for remission of sin.

Lushington supports his view arguing that “remission” (aphesis) is not mentioned in this passage and has to be supplied to give the sense of “taking away” sin (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; Matt. 26:28). [74] Christ did not bear the legal punishment for sin, but His death nevertheless takes away the punishment due: “[P]artly because by his death he testified and confirmed the new Testament, wherein the right of Remission of sinnes is given us; for that Testament being confirmed, becomes of force; and we by meanes of our faith, have a present right to the future forgivenesse of our sinnes.” [75] Christ’s death is not propitiatory or substitutionary, but only confirms the testament of the Testator. The New Testament promises are adoption, sanctification, remission of sins, and the resurrection unto eternal life, “disposed and conveyed unto beleevers” by imputation, ordination, and predestination, according to the will of the Father. [76] Lushington has so far avoided any language that describes or places God’s salvific decree in eternity.

Lushington’s commentary on Galatians denies that God made His will known in the Old Testament, and his work on Hebrews similarly denies that promises such as eternal life were made known. His exposition of Hebrews 3:11 limits God’s promises of rest made to the Patriarchs as merely possessing Canaan, although the drift of the passage includes heavenly rest as the reward of faith and obedience (v. 18). The theme of rest continuing through chapter 4 is highly important for the Puritan view of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, as well as the unchangeableness of the divine decrees (v. 3b). Lushington’s otherwise clear and concise exposition stalls on Hebrews 4:6-7, and, in verse 10, describes the limited number who will enter rest at the appointed time as not Israelites who fell in the wilderness, but those who first enjoyed Christ’s teaching and eventually all posterity. [77] Again, Lushington has so far avoided the language of God’s eternal purpose in election for the sake of consistency with his assertion that God did not reveal His will in the Old Testament, save once.

The last and most important element for the Socinian view of election is Christ’s eternal priesthood. The Racovian Catechism organizes its Christology under the divine titles of Prophet, Priest, and King, which was first developed by Calvin. [78] The Socinians lay the most stress on Christ’s prophetic office as teacher and revealer of God’s will, with much less space devoted to His priesthood and Lordship. Essentially, Christ’s priesthood is eternal but its starting point begins at His ascension. His kingly office is exercised over the kingdom of God in the usual language of subordination to the Father. If Christ’s priesthood had a local starting point, the Socinians may have their hands full proving it successfully from the typology of Melchizedek.

The Father has supreme authority to punish sin and lawfully appoint a priest to mediate on behalf of sinful humanity. Lushington takes the famous quotation of Psalm 110 in Hebrews 5:5-6 to demonstrate that Christ’s appointment as mediator proves He is not co-eternal with the Father, for how can God make a mediator for Himself of Himself? [79] The words “for ever” in verse 6 affirm that no other will replace Christ as priest before God, and are not descriptive of eternal duration. At a pivotal point in chapter 7, Lushington then disassociates Christ’s and Melchizedek’s likeness based on the offering of bread and wine. “The opposition [to Socinianism],” he claims, “say that Melchisedec offered bread and wine to God, and was therefore called a Priest,” making Christ’s antitype on the same inference: that Christ offered the Eucharist to God as well. [80] Lushington argues the connection between Christ and Melchizedek is a great mistake, for neither offered bread or wine to God, but to Abraham and the disciples, respectively. Therefore, the Eucharist does not represent an expiatory basis for Christ’s priesthood, for the Apostle does not compare or infer that the bread and wine in each case was Eucharistic —proof enough to Lushington that Christ’s offering of Himself was not an expiatory sacrifice. [81] It is difficult to ascertain who Lushington is arguing against as he fails to cite, even marginally, one opposing source. Assuming one can prove all sacrifices throughout the ancient world were never substitutionary or atoning, Lushington is correct.

Lushington further intends to show that Christ is unlike Melchizedek from the description of Hebrews 7. Having neither pedigree nor recorded historical facts, Melchizedek is a perpetual priest confirmed outside the limits of the Mosaic law with no successor. [82] Because these details do not have a one-to-one correspondence with Christ, Christ’s priesthood is defined narrowly to mean only that no one else will take His place at the right hand of the Father. Hence His priesthood is not essentially eternal but created to accomplish salvation for all at a certain time, unlimited by the narrow confines of the law.

Having examined and evaluated the major theological points of the Socinians view of election, I will now compare the Puritan doctrine of election from various representative treatises and expositions of Scripture.

The Eternal Decrees Of God: The Puritan View

We looked at how the Socinians redefined God’s election decree of salvation. They asserted that salvation does in fact depend on Christ’s intercession as duly appointed and predetermined by the Father, but His is not an eternal priesthood in the sense that He interceded for believers at any point in eternity prior to His entrance into heaven. If this is the true, scriptural understanding of Christ’s priesthood, redemption is open and universally available for all, albeit vague and general in the mind of God. The Puritan response proceeds on the basis that God is the perfect being, and as such He knows and carries out His eternal purpose in time without frustration or dependence on the will of the creature. The Puritans will also argue that if salvation occurs in anything or anyone other than Christ, assurance of faith vanishes and salvation cannot be obtained by anyone.

The Puritans used two perspectives when discussing God’s essence in relation to His works: ad intra and ad extra. The former comprehend His eternal decrees to create and redeem, while the latter refer to His works within creation and redemption. These decrees ordain everything that will be realized in the progress of history and are rooted in God’s eternal foreknowledge and foreordination. [83] God’s creation does not exhaust or limit His wisdom and understanding, nor does it suspend His knowledge on contingencies or possibilities (Matt. 19:26). [84] Thus the orthodox view of God’s omniscience generally governs the Puritan understanding of God’s decrees to create and redeem, and must be harmonized with positive and negative assertions.

Joseph Caryl’s (1602-1673) exposition of Job 5:9 views God’s works as great, unseachable, wonderfull, and innumerable. The Hebrew words for “make” and “create” signify “do something completely and perfectly,” which God does in all things, “naturall, civill or spirituall.” [85] His works are beyond the deepest inquiry, which for Caryl is the motive for faith and worship. Essentially, what Caryl is driving at is this: if God’s works of creation are seen through to perfection, it follows that His greater works of election and redemption are as well.

The Puritans highly emphasize that election principally occurs in Christ according to God’s love and free grace. [86] Rational theories of election, such as those put forward by Anselm, are virtually nowhere to be found in Puritan writings. [87]The Westminster Confession maintains that God’s eternal purpose in election is unrevealed except that it is rooted in the love of God. [88] Rather than pry into God’s unspeakable intent of election, Robert Traill (1642 –1716) is content to say, “We read in the word of none of the counsels of God before the creation of all things, but of his purpose of saving a company of poor sinful men by Jesus Christ; and of no other design in this purpose, but to magnify his grace in saving of them this way.” [89]

There is an infinite distance between God and humanity that cannot be bridged, unless initiated by God according to free grace. God considers the elect as much dead in sin as the reprobate (Eph. 2:1), so Christ’s intercession as priest is central to election. [90] God’s immutable decree of election proceeds from His perfect infallible counsel, the basis for maintaining His people in sanctification and imparting to them an inward principle of holiness (1 Cor. 1:8; John 10:29; Rom. 11:29). [91] The term counsel implies the Trinitarian view of the decrees to create and redeem; if “three most high Gods” is absurd to the Socinians, a God deliberating with His own attributes is equally so.

Christ was predestined to mediate on behalf of fallen humanity as the second person of the Trinity. Robert Traill affirms that Christ’s priesthood was conferred on Him by oath (Heb. 5:4, 5) in the eternal council of the Trinity “that in time, as soon as sin entered into the world, he should enter upon his office.” [92] Others like Goodwin view Christ as having a two-fold relation to humanity in election: one as head or beginning of humanity which considers it as unfallen, and the other as Redeemer, which views it as lapsed. [93] Goodwin is implying that if Christ is not central to the Father’s decree of election, then election would be an abstraction: salvation is potential for everyone, but not made actual for anyone. Election is based on the real union of Christ within the Trinity, which, similar to what the Socinians have suggested, indicates the believer’s communion with God.

The Puritans present a view of God superintending every aspect of His decree of election according to holiness, love, omniscience, mercy, and justice. God’s plan of salvation does not overwhelm human freedom, but works in mutual accord with humanity throughout history. The Puritans have asserted that God’s purpose in election is incomprehensible, except that election is ordained in Christ as the representative of the elect to God. What remains to be seen in our readings of the Puritans is how these assertions align with voluntary human agency and the foreknowledge of God. This is a tall order, yet, as we hope to demonstrate, the Puritans attempt to solve this conceptual tension on the validity of Scripture.

Daniel Rogers

One of the most exhaustive treatments on the rationality of faith is Daniel Rogers’s (1573-1652) Naaman the Syrian, His Disease and Cure (1642), a folio-sized exposition of 2 Kings 5:9-15. From the outset, Rogers advances two main doctrinal points about election. First, God orchestrates all providential circumstances to accomplish His will in election, consistent with human free will. Second, original sin is adverse to the knowledge of God, antagonizing the reason and the will. The sinful nature or carnal self has to be denied in order to receive saving grace. The carnal self is not specific immoral action, such as adultery, but the motive for any illicit actions, “the idoll of all speciall lusts.” [94] Self-denial is the only precondition that the New Testament places on those who come to faith in Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:24; Luke 14:27; Rom. 8:5, 7; Gal. 6:12). To some, this might imply that self-denial is a work of righteousness prior to regeneration, but this is not Rogers’s meaning. Carnal reason is predisposed to refuse the gospel prior to any act of the will: “Selfe [puts] in a condition of her owne, which God puts not: For the Lord so offers Christ, that the vertue of the offer becomes to a broken soul both price and Chapman; yea, breeds that in the soul which it offers even faith to embrace it. But self puts in a condition, If I can accept it.” [95] Naaman furnishes a vivid example of self-denial in that he must consent to the terms of his cure, which he irrationally refuses.

There was no rational reason for Naaman’s indignation, argues Rogers, for he received the cure on free terms. Naaman’s rejection of the divine cure is not predicated on free will, because it was already in motion, having gone through considerable lengths to fulfill his mission. Free will is not at stake because Naaman demonstrated his ability to reject the offer of grace: “For [Naaman] rejects not grace by the actuall defect of anything which he had power or free-will in himselfe to doe, but from his actuall contempt.” [96]

The emphasis on contempt prior to an act of the will is compelling in this case because nothing else was hindering Naaman’s mission. Supposing the offer of grace is declined, nothing else can compensate, and Naaman would have continued a leper. [97]

Rogers’s exposition of Naaman is a typical example of Puritan handling of God’s sovereignty and human free will, viz., God’s essential purpose in election is unrevealed, but the conceptual tension between divine and human freedom is a knot to be untied. The essential issue is not the tension between the divine and human wills, but the principle of original sin as an alien force encroaching reason in spiritual knowledge: alienation from the life of God. Rogers has shown that original sin, although contrary to God’s will, cannot overpower His grace. He does not, however, produce a satisfactory view of God’s decree of election. For this we turn to Stephen Charnock’s discourse on the holiness of God.

Stephen Charnock

Charnock treats the decree to permit the fall and human free will in his discourse on God’s holiness. God’s essence is holiness (Ex. 15:11), which is the sum quality of His perfections as “Creator, Benefactor, lawgiver, Judge, Restorer and Redeemer.” [98] Charnock sets out to prove that God’s holiness is essentially positive and the tensions between divine justice and mercy, human free will and divine foreknowledge must be reconciled at the bar of God’s holiness.

God’s holiness is the perfection of His nature, and is as essential to God as omniscience. Charnock writes, “As he cannot but know what is right, so he cannot but do what is just. His understanding is not as Created understandings, capable of Ignorance as well as Knowledge; so his Will is not as Created Wills, capable of unrighteousness, as well as Righteousness.” [99]

God perfectly knows Himself; otherwise, His purity of knowledge would be diminished. This is highly significant for understanding God’s mercy and justice. God’s holiness is not an act of His will, but demonstrative that all ad intra acts of will and ad extra acts of His will in creation (pass laws, punish sin) demonstrate that His nature is immutably righteous. [100] He is not only holy, but holiness itself.

God is not the author of sin, nor can He approve it or command its occurrence. Approbation of evil acts is sometimes worse than the actual sin (Rom. 1:32), yet its positive consequences are remorse and repentance. God’s wisdom is magnified “not in the sinful act of the Creature…[but] turning it to another end than what the Creature aimed at.” [101] He cannot positively encourage or ordain sinful acts (James 1:13, 14; Rom. 9:23), which is interpreted by Charnock to mean God prepares the elect for glory. The reprobate, or those “fitted for destruction” (Rom. 9:22), prepare themselves and God through His long-suffering providentially sustaining their existence. Charnock concludes that if sin is contrary to God’s will, then it is not committed by force; it is a voluntary act.

Charnock qualifies this assertion by arguing that sin is “voluntary by an immediate act of the Will, or voluntary by a general or natural inclination of the Will.”102 Originally, God created humanity with a principle inclined to good as well as the endowment of reason to discern and the liberty to act on sound judgment. Charnock concludes that although God created humanity as “mutable,” He did not create them evil or contrary to the holiness of His justice. Scripture lays the blame of man’s first temptation on the tempter (Gen. 3:6), who “distempered the will,” leaving orthodoxy to conclude that God did not act on the mind of man in a supernatural or immediate causal way. [103]

Charnock’s defense of God’s holiness and the decree of the fall is in the usual permissive language of God’s will; God is free as a sovereign to pass over the reprobate, free to permit sin to occur, and free to grant grace to whom He will. God’s holiness is not infringed upon with the entrance of sin into the world, nor is human liberty encroached on due to foreknowledge.

John Owen

Our final reading is John Owen’s (1616-1683) Vindiciae Evangelicae: or the Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated, a work commissioned him by Parliament in 1654 and published in 1655 to refute the Socinians. The Vindiciae’s two main objectives are to disprove the scriptural exegesis of the Racovian and John Biddle’s catechisms and to vindicate God’s Triune nature according to a balanced doctrinal and exegetical interpretation of the gospel.

Owen sets out to show that salvation is not a rationalist assent to Scripture knowledge, but complete inward renewal: “The renovation of that image [of God] which we have by Jesus Christ…. ‘The new man,’ which we put on in Jesus Christ, which ‘is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him,’ Col. iii. 10, is that which we want, by sin’s defacing (sue more) of that image of God in us which we had in knowledge.… So, then, whereas we were created in the image of God, in righteousness and holiness, and are to be renewed again by Christ.” [104]

If the Son is only accidentally or metaphorically God, then gospel renewal does not occur in and through Christ but by other means, viz., the will of the creature. Owen is highly concerned to demonstrate that God’s foreknowledge encompasses all He brings to pass, including things contingent upon free acts. For Owen, this underscores God’s perfection in knowledge and power, the economy of redemption, and revelation throughout the covenants; without divine foreknowledge, the gospel falls to the ground.

Owen’s defense opens with a critique of Biddle’s assertions of the nature, properties, and essence of God. Following the Socinian denial of God’s infinite essence, Biddle asserts that it is “in a certain place,” i.e. heaven, insinuating a finite and limited location. [105] Owen argues that place and presence in a place cannot be properly spoken of God because the logical distinction corresponds to objects and persons: objects occupy space and persons are present in a space. This kind of language, Owen argues, is proper to finite, immaterial substances. The assertion that God is everywhere must be taken as an essential (absolute) divine property, whereas the relative properties of God (i.e., ubiquity) refer to His presence to all things and persons. [106] Biddle is already put on the horns of a dilemma: where was God before the heavens were made?

Scripture affirms God’s essence is impassible, contrary to Biddle’s assertion that anger, fury, zeal, love, etc. describe His nature. Mercy and grace are acknowledged to be attributes of God, but passions ascribed to God are metaphorical, describing acts of His will, which the Socinians affirm against Biddle. [107] Affections denote an “incomplete, imperfect act of the will,” which cannot be said of a God who is infinitely perfect and blessed. [108] God’s wrath, for example, is an accommodating term used for the act of vindictive justice; yet Scripture affirms elsewhere that anger and fury is not “in him” (Isa. 27:4). Fear is ascribed to God (Deut. 32:27) and, following Aristotle’s definition of fear, Owen argues that God forbids this kind of fear in His people (Isa. 35:4, cf. Prov. 3:25). Fear betrays “those succours which reason offereth,” and how can God be afraid when He knows His purpose will come to pass? [109] likewise love, mercy, and grace describe God’s essential goodness and the effects of His will through Jesus Christ. Thus impassibility is not seen as a static quality of God, but a strong doctrinal point which asserts that God cannot be disappointed in knowledge and will.

Owen’s defense of God’s foreknowledge is established on the basis of His infinite essence and impassibility. Biddle first asserts that human actions are free, “which are neither past nor present, but may afterward either be or not be,” and then demands Scripture proof for God’s knowledge of contingent acts. [110] Typical of Socinian proof-texting, Biddle clusters Old Testament texts together that allege God’s mutability as proof of divine conjecture and repentance (e.g. Deut. 32:27; Jer. 36:1-3). God’s speech to Abraham (Gen. 22:12) is one example which Biddle takes as conclusive proof that God did not know what would transpire before the test. Through a fine yet complicated argument, Owen argues reductio absurdum that if God needed tests to acquire knowledge then He is ignorant of present circumstances. “He may be as well concluded forgetful of what he himself hath spoken,” argues Owen, “because he bids us put him in remembrance.” [111] Owen does not simply assert the contrary, but shows the Socinians do not account for the way in which God would gain knowledge.

Owen’s definition of foreknowledge shows the general universal consent, closely following scriptural and rabbinical definitions. Following Rabbi Aben. Rost., foreknowledge, Owen writes, “relates to the things known, and the order wherein they stand to one another and among themselves…. Things that are past, as to the order of the creatures which he hath appointed to them, and the works of providence which outwardly are of him, he knows as past; not by remembrance, as we do, but the same act of knowledge wherewith he knew them from all eternity, even before they were.” [112]

If something were to change, the change affects the thing and not God’s knowledge. “Infinite science” must know what “infinite power” can do, meaning God’s knowledge is measured by His will which is the basis of the divine decrees. [113] As for future contingencies, if God demonstrates knowledge of one contingency, such as Joseph’s being sent to Egypt (Gen. 45:5-8) and human thought and action (Ps. 139:2-6), then His knowledge of all contingencies must be granted according to the same logic. [114] To deny or argue against proof that God knew a prior event in time is, for Owen, post hoc reasoning.

Owen sees the Socinian line of argument limiting God’s knowledge as not having knowledge at any point in time (past, present, or future). Perhaps the Socinians are Boethian in their view that God bears no temporal relation to natural events, meaning foreknowledge of natural events violates God’s eternality, and for Owen this is contrary to Scripture (1 John 3:20). [115] If so, Socinianism can only arrive at the erroneous conclusion that God’s knowledge is not determinately known, is subject to hourly change, and is dependent upon conjecture. For Owen, this is impossible for an eternal being and unworthy of the name of God. [116] Owen has already shown that God does not “remember,” which is coherent given that God is timeless. If the question can a timeless being forget? is asked, “a timeless being,” argues Paul Helm, “remembers p when he knows p and it is impossible for him to forget p.” [117] The Socinian argument denies what God knows in time, and does not produce a coherent account of God’s eternal knowledge according to Scripture.

Having plodded through Owen’s defense of God’s knowledge, we turn next to briefly illustrate his view of the divinity of Christ. Closely following the Nicene Creed, Owen affirms that Christ is the “true, proper, only-begotten Son of God…begotten of the essence of God his Father.” [118] The distinction between Christ and all of God’s people is that He is properly a Son; others are metaphorically so, or “adopted” (Rom. 9:4). God alone can bestow equality of essence, which for Owen is the sole reason how the Son is equal to God in essence and qualities. The Word becomes incarnate by union, not by alteration, as the soul is one substance and the body another. The texts which subordinate Christ’s person to the Father (John 1:1, 14; 5:17, 19, 21) do so only in respect to Christ’s mediatorial office that the Father appointed by grace. [119] For Owen, Christ’s eternal generation described in the opening of John’s gospel is foundational to the tenor of orthodox theology; Christ’s eternal divinity is the vital link between God’s eternal counsel of redemption and the demonstration that His eternal purpose is accomplished.

Finally, Owen proceeds to defend God’s eternal election in Christ against the Socinian doctrine of universal grace and salvation. Biddle asserts that a belief in God’s universal love to all humanity is a prerequisite for communion with God through Christ. [120] On the contrary, Owen points that the grounds that salvation is belief in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, which the Socinians flatly deny. [121] Biddle argues that eternal election is a great discouragement to belief, charging the Puritan view of effectual and electing love to few is contrary to God’s universal love extended to all. Biddle’s view of God’s electing love described throughout Scripture mirrors the Socinian rational assent to Scripture, and not as the stated eternal purpose of God (John 3:16, 17; 4:42; 1 John 4:14; John 12:46-47; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 Pet. 3:9). [122] The texts cited by Biddle stand alone in his analysis as proof for his doctrine, which for Owen cannot formulate a comprehensive doctrine when not harmonized with numerous other texts that support particular redemption. Owen sees particular redemption as a central biblical theme, assuming the reprobate unbeliever is intended from Genesis 3:15, culminating in Christ’s redemption of the church, not all of humanity.

Summary

Owen’s defense of God’s foreknowledge and election reflects a deep commitment to Reformed orthodoxy. While his arguments are not innovative, Owen clearly shows that each major point of Socinian doctrine depends on erroneous exegesis, despite the subtle and nuanced arguments formulated solely from Scripture.

Conclusion

The Socinians put forward an impressive doctrinal system in a short amount of space. Socinus, Crellius, and Lushington each write with remarkable clarity, simplicity, and undeniable force, presenting a unique solidarity in their central thought. Critics and proponents of Socinianism note the great difficulty in tying them to a single philosophical position such as nominalism, given the ardent self-identification as Biblicists and heirs of the Reformation. The genius of Socinianism is the centrality of Scripture within its system, and one imagines they would wear the charge of extreme fundamentalism as a badge of honor. The Socinians were successful in producing several internationally renown theoreticians, most notably Crellius, a prize far outweighing the strength of sheer numbers and printed matter.

Although the Puritans were far more comprehensive in their doctrinal views, it came at the cost of severe prolixity. The pastoral theology of Charnock, Jenkyn, and Traill is highly informed, biblically driven, and doctrinally sound, yet they lacked the sophistication needed to meet the Socinians head on. One characteristic—the incessant cross-referencing of supporting texts—often detracts from the writer’s central purpose and requires considerable patience from the reader. The theoretical focus of the Puritans also tends to be sluggish, which some attribute to the lack of a frontrunner before 1640. [123 Owen, on the other hand, more than fills the void, with the Socinian debate affording the perfect opportunity to articulate the gospel in a solid and largely unanswered work from the Puritan camp.

Shortcomings aside, the Puritans successfully demonstrate the consistency of two vital points in the Orthodox/Reformed doctrine of God. First, God is the most perfect being, perfect in knowledge and power. Second, the Puritans successfully uphold the principle that the language of “future contingency” is unique to the finite human perspective, not to God’s perfect understanding. The Socinians create conceptual discontinuity between God’s sheer dominion and the seeming inability to carry out His will in salvation given the extreme freedom assigned to the human will. Owen shows greater continuity by maintaining free will within a soft deterministic framework, holding the Thomistic notion that there is no comparison or contrast between finite and infinite. However, the Socinian charge still persists; if election does not originate a posteriori in the human will but eternally in God, even if it was assumed in Christ, the result is deterministic and contrary to God’s and man’s respective freedom. Part of the Puritan response is the eternal person of Christ, who represents humanity before God according to His eternal priesthood; the other part, reconciling the freedom of the divine and human will, is simply unsolvable.

The Puritans gain more continuity by maintaining Christ’s divinity prior to His incarnation. The Socinians make a case against persons sharing one essence, and shift the language of personhood away from the terms substance and essence. Yet their solution—that Christ was a mere man conceived by the Holy Spirit, partaking of the divine essence only after His resurrection and ascension—is untenable. For one, it rests on the erroneous changing of the phrase “in the beginning” ( John 1:1, cf. Mark 1:1) to mean the beginning of the gospel, not co-eternality with God. For another, the Socinians allege that if Christ was co-eternal, He would have non-being prior to His birth; yet they run aground on the same allegation, ascribing to Christ non-being and later infinite being. Handling these assumptions depends on maintaining a consistent view of election, which the Puritans do by placing the principle of election in the heart of Christ’s mission to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).

The Socinian and Puritan debate is highly significant and valuable for theological studies today. The most significant point in the debate is the polarization between faith and reason in the procedure of biblical exegesis. The debates over the divine attributes, election, and foreknowledge were fought directly over the content of Scripture, and one can easily see that the validity of Scripture itself was at stake given the close proximity of the Enlightenment. The Puritan and Socinian treatment of scriptural doctrine created two distinct tracks for biblical theology well into the contemporary climate: the Socinians are the seedbed for the rise of Deistic rationalist exegesis while the Puritans provide fodder for the ongoing Evangelical-orthodox defense of the Trinity. The Puritan and Socinian debate has been overlooked and warrants ongoing investigation, providing key insights for modern theology’s modus operandi of knowing God.

Notes

1. This article was originally prepared for the completion of graduate studies (MCS) at Regent College, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, under the supervision of Paul Helm, Teaching Fellow at Regent College. It has been edited for length with only minor corrections and formatting alterations.
2. “Puritan” and “Socinian” were pejorative terms and have wide definitions. For the sake of brevity we use “Puritan” for seventeenth-century English Reformed (nonconformist) and “Socinian” for Polish Brethren and Anti-trinitarian theology. See Carl Trueman, Claims of Truth (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 9; also Stanislas Kot, Socinianism in Poland: The Social and Political Ideas of the Polish Antitrinitarians in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Boston: Starr King Press, 1957), xix.
3. For reviews of all seven hundred titles, see Joel R. Beeke and Randall Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006).
4. With a few exceptions, this article concentrates on works between 1630 and 1655. Socinianism was relatively unheard of until the incarcerations of Paul Best (1645) and John Biddle (1644) for anti-trinitarian heresies. More strife and attention were paid to the Socinians by the state upon the appearance of Lushington’s work on Hebrews (1646) and later Galatians (1650). With the first appearance of the Racovian Catechism in English (1651), Parliament was soon to call on Owen to refute the Socinians’ principle work which finally appeared in 1655.
5. Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 4:305.
6. George Huntston Williams, The Polish Brethren: Documentation of the History & Thought of Unitarianism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the Diaspora, 1601-1685 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1980), 2:674.
7. John Crellius, The Two Books of John Crellius Francus, Touching One God the Father. Wherein many things also concerning the Nature of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit Are discoursed of, trans. John Biddle (Amsterdam: Printed in Kosinoburg, at the Sign of the Sunbeams, 1665), 225.
8. Thomas Rees, trans., The Racovian Catechism, with Notes and Illustrations, Translated from The Latin: to which is prefixed A Sketch of the History of Unitarianism in Poland and The Adjacent Countries (London: Printed for Longman, Hurst, Bees, Orme, & Brown, 1818), 18, 19.
9. John Mclachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1951), 66.
10. First published in Latin in 1611 and translated in 1731 by Edward Combe. Also published later as A Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion (London: W. Meadows, 1732).
11. Ibid., 6.
12. Ibid., 66.
13. Thomas Lushington, The Expiation of a Sinner. In a Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Printed by Tho. Harper, and are to be Sold by Charles Greene, at his Shop in Ivy lane, 1646), 2. Cf. also, ibid., 53, on Hebrew 7:4 –7 where he affirms that God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Lushington’s commentary on Hebrews is an enlarged translation of Crellius.
14. Richard A. Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 2:82, 83.
15. Ibid., 188.
16. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man (London: T. Tegg & Son, 1837), 1:48. Witsius’s criticism of Volkelius’s theology is valid, however, Volkelius’s treatment of Genesis 2:17 is early in the movement and probably not a representative view. On the other hand, the Racovian Catechism (20-21) is vague concerning God’s covenant promises to Adam beyond natural dominion over the earth. Volkelius’s major contributions to the Racovian Catechism were later replaced by Crellius, lending to the difficulty of discerning some of the editing processes. See Wilbur, ibid., 418-19.
17. Socinus, 54. Cf. also, Racovian Catechism, 5.
18. ]Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity, Consisting of Above One Hundred and Seventy-Six Sermons on the Shorter Catechism, Composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines At Westminster, with a Supplement of Some Sermons on Several Texts of Scripture; Together with the Art of Divine Contentment. To which is Added, Christ’s Various Fulness (Glasgow: Printed by William Paton, Near the Foot of the Market, for John Johnston, Calton Cross, 1795), 22.
19. Packer, James, “Puritan Theology for Today” (unpublished lecture). Regent College, Vancouver B.C., July 7, 2007.
20. Albert Peel, Leland H. Carlson, The Writings of Robert Harrison and Robert Browne (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1953), 174, 189.
21. Goodwin, Works, 4:304.
22. William Jenkyn, An Exposition of the Epistle of Jude, Together with many Large and Useful Deductions (London: Printed by Tho. Maxey, for Sa. Gellibrand, at the Ball in Paul’s Churchyard, 1656), 106.
23. Ibid., 107. See also Daniel Rogers, Naaman the Syrian, Discovering Lively to the Reader the Spirituall Leprosie of Sinne and Selfe-love: Together with the Remedies, Viz. Selfe-Deniall and Faith (London: Thomas Harper for William Nevil, 1642), 354.
24. Thomas Manton, A Third Volume of Sermons Preached by the Late Reverend and Learned Thomas Manton, D.D. in two parts: The First Containing LXVI Sermons on the Eleventh Chapter of the Hebrews. With a Treatise of the Life of Faith. Part the Second: A Treatise Of Self-Denial. With Several Sermons on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and other Occasions (London: Printed by J.D. to be sold by William Marshal at the Bible in Newgate, Street, 1689), 237.
25. Ibid., 241.
26. See Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity: Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion are Opened: The Contrary Errours Refuted: Most of the Controversies Between Us, the Papists, Arminians and Socinians Discussed and Handled (London: Printed by A.M. For William Lee at the Sign of the Turks-head in Fleet-street over against Fetter-lane, 1654), 500.
27. See Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Tradition of the Eastern Church (Ithica: Paulist Press, 2001), 115.
28. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God, trans. John Vriend, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 2:129.
29. Roberts, Alexander, Donaldson, James, eds., The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to 325 A.D. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 5:612.
30. Joseph Caryl, An Exposition with Practical Observations upon Chapters 4-7 of the Book of Job Delivered in 35 Lectures (Berkley, Michigan: Dust & Ashes Publications and Reformation Heritage Books, 2001), 12:1.
31. Muller, 4:99.
32. The Works of the Late and Learned Divine, Stephen Charnock, Being Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of God (London: Printed by A. Maxwell, R. Roberts for Tho. Cockrill at the Three-legs in the Poultry, Over Against the Stocks Market, 1684), 1:113.
33. Ibid., 116. He is referring to an anti-Socinian work by Abraham Calovius (1616-1686).
34. Ibid.
35. Racovian Catechism, 26.
36. Ibid., 29.
37. Muller, 3:91.
38. For the impact of Crellius’s work in England, see Muller, 4:98. See also H. John Mclachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1951), 108 –116.
39. John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1998), 10:506.
40. Crellius, 2.
41. Ibid., 244; 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Mark 13:32; Deut. 6:4, and 1 John 5:7. Crellius hints that the reading in 1 John 5:7 (“There are three that bear record in heaven”) is corrupt, but, granting the passage genuine, assumes it defends the Father’s unity, as witnessed by the Son and Spirit. There are eight sixteenth-century manuscripts that have this gloss, but only one fourth-century witness that affirms this reading. Our reading of Charnock suggests that he was aware of the possible corruption and in its place cites 1 John 5:20 in his scriptural analysis of the Trinity. Owen (Works, 12:87) cites 1 John 5:7 as a legitimate reading. See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: UBS, 2001), 647-48.
42. Crellius, 55.
43. Ibid., 148. Cf. John Biddle, A Confession of Faith, Touching the Holy Trinity According to the Scripture (London, 1648), 4. Biddle argues from John 17:3 that the Holy Spirit is not co-eternal (or a person) because He is omitted in this passage.
44. Ibid., 249.
45. Ibid., 37: “There is no such Person besides the Father. It is in vain here to think of the holy Spirit: for to omit, that it is not granted, that the holy Spirit is so much as a Person, this is certain, that the holy Spirit, is not a Person worthier than the Person of Christ.”
46. This article follows the second edition of Charnock’s Works, 1684.
47. Ibid., 2:382.
48. Ibid., 2:383.
49. Ibid., 2:388.
50. Ibid., 2:389.
51. Phillip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 8:39.
52. Charnock, 2:388.
53. Crellius, 256.
54. Ibid., 268.
55. Ibid., 273.
56. Charnock, 2:390.
57. Ibid., 2:499.
58. Ibid.
59. Racovian Catechism, 333.
60. Ibid., 335.
61. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Philadelphia: P&R Publications, 1997), 1:311.
62. Racovian Catechism, 48.
63. Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, Socinianism and its Antecedents (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard university Press, 1947), 416.
64. Racovian Catechism, 342. Italics added.
65. Ibid., 325. Cf. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man (London: T. Tegg & Son, 1837), 1:42-44: “For to command, is to bind one to obedience. To say, Obey not, is to dispense with the bond of obligation. It is therefore most contradictory to say, I command, but do not obey” (emphasis added).
66. Racovian Catechism, 338.
67. Ibid., 104.
68. Williams, 1:93.
69. Ibid., 1:95.
70. Racovian Catechism, 194.
71. Thomas Lushington, The Justification of a Sinner: Being the Maine Argument of the Epistle to The Galatians (London: Printed by T.H. and are to be Sold at the Gun in Ivy lane, 1650). For an in depth biographical notice of Lushington and the impact of his work see H. John Mclachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth Century England (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1951), 108-117.
72. Lushington, Justification, 22.
73. Ibid., 24.
74. Ibid., 14. Words in the genitive accompanying ὑπέρ used here (Gal. 1:4) mean “on behalf of ” or “for the sake of,” indicating substitutionary atonement; “for our sins” (tōn hamartiōn hemōn) is in the genitive.
75. Lushington, Justification, 15.
76. Ibid., 26.
77. Thomas Lushington, The Expiation of a Sinner. In a Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Printed by Tho. Harper, and are to be Sold by Charles Greene, at his Shop in Ivy lane, 1646), 62, 63.
78. Paul Helm, “John Calvin’s Ideas.” unpublished lecture, Regent College, Vancouver B.C., May 28, 2007.
79. Lushington, Expiation, 80.
80. Ibid., 115.
81. Ibid., 116.
82. Ibid., 120.
83. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:337.
84. Ibid., 2:343.
85. Joseph Caryl, Job, 2:238.
86. See J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 149-52. Cf. Thomas Brooks, Works (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 2:376, “The only ground of God’s love is his love.” Robert Leighton, The Whole Works of Robert Leighton (London: James Duncan, 1835), 1:120, “Foreknowledge refers to the elect, as the Rabbins say, verba sensus in sacra scriptura denotant affectus (Ps. 1:6, Amos 3:2). So then this (1 Pet. 1:2) foreknowledge is no other than that eternal love of God.” See also Thomas Goodwin, Works, 9:101, “Grace communicates God to us.” William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1980), 341, “Grace…implies the free will of God.”
87. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo (la Salle: Open Court Books, 1966), 210-25. Part of Anselm’s theory of election argues that God created and elected humanity to replace the number of fallen angels.
88. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2003), 28. Cf. Article XVII, Gilbert Burnett, An Exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (London: John Nisbit, 1898), 1:200. See also Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.5.
89. Robert Traill, The Works of Robert Traill (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1975), 1:23.
90. Traill, Works, 3:233.
91. William Jenkyn, Jude, 29.
92. Traill, Works, 2:228.
93. Thomas Goodwin, Works, 9:344.
94. Rogers, Naaman, 127.
95. Ibid., 132.
96. Ibid., 11.
97. Ibid., 164.
98. Charnock, Works, 1:513.
99. Ibid., 1:505.
100. Ibid., 1:506.
101. Ibid., 1:507.
102. Ibid., 1:510.
103. Ibid., 1:542.
104. Owen, Works, 12:148.
105. Ibid., 12:89. The citation is from the Racovian Catechism, Ch. 9, pt. 1.
106. Owen, Works, 12:93.
107. Ibid., 12:108.
108. Ibid., 12:109.
109. Ibid., 12:113.
110. Ibid., 12:115.
111. Ibid., 12:122.
112. Ibid., 12:127.
113. Ibid., 12:128.
114. Ibid., 12:133.
115. See Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy (New York: Penguin Books, 1999), Bk. V. Cf. Aquinas, Q. 8 art. 2 and Calvin, Institutes, 1. 5.11.
116. Owen, Works, 12:138.
117. Paul Helm, Eternal God, A Study of God Without Time (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 59.
118. Owen, Works, 12:184.
119. Ibid., 12:214.
120. Ibid., 12: 552.
121. For a summary analysis of the Socinian view of atonement and the Anglican response, see Joel Heflin, “A Defense of Substitutionary Atonement in the Work of William Outram (1625-1679)” (unpublished paper, Regent College, Vancouver B.C., February, 2007).
122. Owen, Works, 12:557.
123. Paul Seaver, The Puritan Lectureships, the Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560– 1662 (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1970), 39.