:Faustus Socinus's A Tract

Concerning God, Christ, and

the Holy Spirit
Introduction, Translation, and
Contemporary Relevance

Alan W. Gomes
Introduction
As I pointed out in a recently published book chapter,1 one of
the values of studying historical theology is that it allows us to "pump
intellectual iron" with some of the great thinkers of yesteryear. We can
learn a tremendous amount from the theological debates of the past
because they were often waged by intellectual giants, the likes of whom
we typically do not see today. Nor should we think that the orthodox
had a monopoly on all of the brains in these disputes. As I noted in
that chapter, I commonly tell my students that they simply do not make
heretics like they used to! As an example, I often cite Faustus Socinus
(1539-1604), well known for his denial of many of the cardinal teachings
of orthodoxy, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, pe-
nal substitution, and God's foreknowledge of future contingent events.
In Socinus "we encounter a mind well versed in the biblical languages,
classical literature, logic, philosophy, exegesis, and theology, all pressed
into the service of overturning the historic doctrines of the faith!" 2
Now, there are at least two reasons for engaging the arguments of
a "dead and buried" opponent like Socinus, particularly for someone

Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Volume 1, Number 1, 2008

38 ISCA JOURNAL

called to an apologetics ministry. First, "in this way we may be able to

spar vicariously with adversaries tougher than the ones we face in our
day-to-day ministries." 3 This builds up our "theological muscles," mak-
ing it easier to deal with less formidable opponents. If one can refute the
arguments of Socinus against, say, the Trinity or God's foreknowledge,
then he or she can lay waste to the ruminations of the Watchtower or
of the open theists "without shifting out of first gear." 4 The second
reason is that, as a matter of intellectual honesty, it is best to refute a
position in its strongest rather than in its weakest form. Again, consider
the doctrine of the Trinity. We believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is
true. Since it is true, there can be no argument or set of arguments that
ultimately disprove it. Yet, it does not follow from this that every argu-
ment against the Trinity is as plausible as any other. That is, certain argu-
ments against the Trinity are more formidable than others, even though
all of the arguments against it are, in the end, false. But if we refute the
strongest arguments then we and others can know that we have been fair
to the opposing view, giving the opposition its best shot at proving its
case. Furthermore, we ourselves can have confidence that we have dealt
solidly with the problem. We should not be reluctant to engage the best
the enemy has to offer, for "orthodoxy is sufficiently robust to stand
against the worst that heterodoxy can dish out." 5
In an attempt to "field test" these ideas and values, the editors of
this journal have agreed to publish a translation of a particular treatise
against the doctrine of the Trinity by Faustus Socinus (a smart heretic
long dead) and then allow Prof. Robert M. Bowman (a smart theolo-
gian very much alive) to take a whack at refuting it. The treatise I have
selected to translate is Socinus' s A Tract concerning God, Christ, and the
Holy Spirit, 6 which I think provides a pretty good window into Socinus' s
argumentation and thought processes. Although Socinus wrote a good
deal more against the Trinity than this, I believe this is a fair specimen
and it is one that fits within the confines of an article-length piece.
Since some readers of this article may be unfamiliar with Socinus,
I shall provide the briefest of introductions. 7 Fausto Paolo Sozzini (La-
tinized as "Faustus Socinus") was born in Italy in 1539 of noble parent-
ALAN w. GOMES 39

age. Some of the members of his family had distinguished themselves in

the field of law and he, too, pursued legal studies early on. Faustus was
influenced particularly by his uncle Laelius, who harbored unorthodox
sentiments on the Trinity, the satisfaction of Christ on the cross, and
other key orthodox doctrines. Laelius had traveled throughout Europe
making the acquaintance of important Reformation figures, sometimes
in person and in other cases only through written correspondence. Lae-
lius typically did not assert positively his own views. Rather, he posed
questions, which he offered as hypothetical objections to the orthodox
view, as though seeking answers in order to defend the orthodox posi-
tion. Some, such as Calvin, soon became convinced that these "ques-
tions" were a thinly veiled ruse by which Laelius sought to cloak and
at the same time advance his own heterodox opinions. Others, such as
Bullinger, were more hopeful, thinking that Laelius was most probably
orthodox albeit particularly inquisitive. In this matter Calvin's instincts
proved correct. 8
Faustus shared none of his uncle's tentativeness, and when the
time was right he would eventually set forth his views boldly, vigorously,
and systematically in his voluminous writings. On the death of his pa-
tron, Cosimo I, he resigned his position at the Florentine Court, where
he served as a secretary under Duke Paolo Giordano Orsini, husband
of Isabella de' Medici and Cosimo's son-in-law. Recognizing that Italy
would not be a safe abode should his heretical opinions become known,
he departed his native land permanently at the age of 35. He, like his un-
cle before him, traveled through different Reformation territories, study-
ing theology and engaging in occasional written and oral debates, such
as his famous dispute in Basle with Jacques Covetus (a French Reformed
minister) against the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction on the cross.
Socinus' s great intellectual gifts and rhetorical power came to the
attention of George Blandrata, a Piedmontese physician and one of the
leaders of the antitrinitarian party in Transylvania and Poland. 9 In 1578
Blandrata prevailed upon Socinus to migrate to Transylvania, where he
greatly helped to systematize the theology of the antitrinitarians in order
to defend against polemical attacks from both Catholics and orthodox
40 ISCA JOURNAL

Protestants. He was also called upon to address some of the internal

conflicts within the antitrinitarian movement, such as the hotly debated
issue of whether Christ should receive worship, granting that on unitar-
ian terms he is not God by nature. Socinus eventually settled in Poland,
where he became the "theological brain," as it were, of the Polish Unitar-
ians, also known as the Minor Reformed Church.
AB for the theological positions that Faustus held, he is of course
well known for his denial of the Trinity, the subject of the present trea-
tise. Naturally, he denied the concomitant doctrine of the two natures
in Christ. He did not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person but rather
is the power of God. He also rejected the substitutionary atonement,
i.e., the doctrine of the Christ's vicarious satisfaction for our sins. He es-
chewed the doctrines of original sin, justification by faith alone through
the imputed righteousness of Christ, God's foreknowledge of future
contingent events, creation ex nihilo, and eternal conscious punishment
for the lost.
But Socinus' s theology is not mere negation. He held to the abso-
lute authority of Scripture, which he regarded as a revelation from God,
necessary for the salvation of human beings, and the source on which
Christian doctrine must be built. 10 In fact, Socinus wrote what may be
the first work of modern evidential apologetics for the reliability of the
Bible: De auctoritate sacrae scripturae (Concerning the authority of Holy Scrip-
ture). Unlike modern rationalist theologies (such as Deism or modern
liberalism), Socinus accepted the supernatural elements in the Bible
without hesitation. Regarding Christology, Socinus believed that Jesus
was a true man. He did not exist before his conception in the womb of
the virgin, but came into being when he was miraculously conceived by
the power of the Holy Spirit. God brought forth Jesus into the world
in order to show us the way of salvation, which we attain by imitating
him.11 After his baptism but before the commencement of his earthly
ministry, God literally raptured Jesus into heaven where, in a literal au-
dience with God, he received instruction in the plan of salvation, which
he was then sent down to teach to men.12 Although Jesus is not God, he
is to be given divine honor as a man, as God himself requires. He is to re-
ALAN w. GOMES 41

ceive religious worship from men and his aid may be invoked in prayer;
anyone who denies this cannot be saved.13 Jesus literally died on a cross
to demonstrate his commitment to his teaching, and God vindicated
Christ and his teaching by raising him bodily from the dead to immortal
life. Human beings may also attain bodily resurrection and immortal life
if they follow his precepts in obedience. As for the wicked, they will not
be raised to immortal life but will experience annihilation.
Socinus wrote the present work, A tract concerning God, Christ, and
the Holy Spirit, probably in 1583. He apparently composed this short
work as part of his response to some lectures conducted at the Posnanian
College, a Jesuit school. 14 In these lectures the Jesuits sought to refute
the unitarian position in a series of theses entitled, Theological assertions
concerning the triune God, against the new Samosateans. 15 Socinus excerpted
these theses, added his own rejoinders to them, and then published
them in 1583 under the aforementioned title. This separate Tractatus,
which I have translated in this article, relates to the Theological Assertions
in Socinus's collected works and has reference to that same series oflec-
tures, as one of the editors of his collected works indicates. 16
A few brief words about the translation are in order. I have tried to
render Socinus's Latin into English as literally as possible, taking into
consideration also the demands of modern English style. In some plac-
es, particularly where I have rendered an expression idiomatically, I have
provided a footnote to the original Latin and indicated its literal read-
ing. I have often found it necessary to divide Socinus's very lengthy sen-
tences into two or more English sentences-again, in keeping with the
sensibilities of modern English. At the same time, I have endeavored to
retain the force of Socinus' s logic and the interconnection of his ideas.
The numbers that appear in square brackets are to the volume and page
number in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, should the interested reader
wish to study the matter further.
42 ISCA JOURNAL

A Tract Concerning God, Christ,

and the Holy Spirit
by Faustus Socinus

Translated from the Latin

by Alan W. Gomes

[BFP 1.811]

[Trinitarian] Argument:
GOD is only one, as many testimonies of Scripture establish. But
in the Scriptures the Father is called God, and likewise the Son and the
Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God,
and consequently God is indeed one in essence but three in persons.

[Socinus's] Response:
THE WORD "GOD" can be taken in a two-fold way, especially in
the Holy Scriptures. The first way is, when it signifies him who rules over
and is in charge of all things, both in heaven and on earth, and who is
the author and source of things. No one has superiority or primacy over
him, nor does he depend on any. It is in this first way that God is said
to be one. The other way is, when it signifies him who has some highest
rulership or might or power from the one God himself, or is a partaker
in some other way of the divinity of this one God. Hence, the one God,
i.e., Jehovah, is called the "God of gods" (Ps. 50: 1). It is in the latter way
that the Son, or Christ, is sometimes called "God" in the Scriptures.
The entire matter is made clear from the words of Christ himself
in John 10:35: "If," he says, "he called them 'Gods,' to whom the word
of God was given (and the Scripture cannot be broken): why do you say
of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'He blas-
phemes,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" Christ clearly shows in
these words that the name "God" in the Holy Scriptures is also attrib-
uted to those who are greatly inferior to the one God. And these words
show that he wished to call himself the Son of God, and in turn God,
ALAN w. GOMES 43

in no other superior way than that he was sanctified by the Father and
sent into the world. Therefore, Christ is indeed God but nevertheless
not the one God. He is indeed God because he was set apart from oth-
ers in a most excellent way by the one God and, having been abundantly
furnished with heavenly gifts, was put in charge both of announcing and
of truly bestowing eternal salvation on men. (The one God is altogether
the same as the Father, as we shall prove later.) For this is his sanctifica-
tion from the Father and his sending 17 into the world.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, it 18 is never distinctly and literally (as it
were) 19 called God in Scripture, but only, and by no means rarely, char-
acteristics of God are attributed to it-or, what is attributed to the Holy
Spirit somewhere20 is found attributed to God either in the same place 21
or elsewhere. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit is the power and
efficacy of God. For what is attributed to the power and efficacy of God
is without a doubt attributed to God himself. But the power and efficacy
of God is not therefore some divine person, just as neither the goodness
of God, nor his justice, nor mercy, nor judgment, nor other effects or
properties of God are some divine persons. Otherwise, there ought to
be many more [persons] than three.
Besides, from the mere fact that it is clearly indicated that God is
one, a person can rightly conclude that he is neither three nor two. For
to be One and Three are mutually exclusive; 22 likewise, to be One and
Two. Thus, if God is three or two he cannot be one. For that distinc-
tion, "One in essence, Three in persons," is never found in the Holy
Scriptures, and clearly is at odds with most certain reason and truth. For
it is absolutely certain that there are not fewer individual essences than
there are persons, since a person is nothing other than an individual
intelligent essence.
Now, the fact that this one God is none other than the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ-and not the Son of God and the Holy Spirit-is
proven clearly in many ways, especially the following:

1. First, as was shown, if God is one, he cannot be three or two.

Moreover, everyone agrees and the Scripture everywhere testifies,
44 ISCA }OURNAL

that the Father of Christ is that God. Therefore, it necessarily fol-

lows that this one God is none other than the Father of Christ.

2. [BFP 1.812] Next, from those very passages in which is it express-

ly conveyed that there is only one God, there are not a few where
it is stated that this one God is the Father of all, or the Father of
Jesus Christ. In Jn. 17:3 Christ himself states that his Father alone
is that true God, even with respect to Christ himself. In fact, he
names himself in that same passage and distinguishes himself from
the Father. Indeed, he does this in such a way that it could not be
said that he spoke about himself according to his human nature
alone. For he refers to himself in so far as that very knowledge [of
himself] comprises eternal life. Everyone sees that, in so far as he
refers to himself, the reference is to the entire Christ. Although
formerly some supposed that Christ's words should be taken to
mean that the Father and Jesus Christ are that only true God, this
is rejected today by nearly all Trinitarians, since neither the struc-
ture of the words nor the passage itself would appear to bear it.
Not only that, but in this way [of understanding the text) the Holy
Spirit would clearly be excluded from that sole, true divinity, the
knowledge of which is necessary for attaining eternal life. Again,
1 Car. 8:6 clearly teaches that our one God is the Father, from
whom are all things and we in him-"him," I say, referring to the
Father, because he is distinguished from Christ, in so far as Christ
is that one Lord, through whom are all things, and we through
him. Thus, just as in the earlier passage, here also it can in no way
be said that these words were written about Christ only according
to his human nature. Likewise, Eph. 4:6, which says that there is
one God, distinctly affirms at the same time that that one God is
the Father of all, and he is clearly distinguished from Christ in so
far as Christ is the one Lord.

3. An invincible argument for proving that the Father alone is that

one God is that over and over23 the name "God," when it appears
ALAN w. GOMES 45

by itself24 and signifies that subsistence, assuredly refers only to

God the Father, even as the adversaries 25 themselves are compelled
to admit. Moreover, when the name "God" is placed [in the text]
by itself, 26 as stated above, it never signifies, clearly and without any
controversy, Christ or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone. For
although Christ sometimes is called God, as stated above, never-
theless then the name of God does not signify that very subsistence
but only an attribute of the subsistence. Or, if you prefer, then the
name of God does not function as a subject but as a predicate. For
never in the divine writings will you find it written that God either
did or said something, or any other thing to be affirmed about
God, that should altogether and necessarily be referred to Christ
as distinct from the Father.

4. Additionally, 27 (A) Christ is everywhere called "the Son of God"

(as he truly is), and, (B) the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of God,"
and (C) without a doubt he is that one God who is called "God"
in passages of this sort. From these facts it follows that neither the
Son nor the Holy Spirit is that one God. Otherwise, the Son would
be his own son and the Holy Spirit his 28 own spirit.

5. Since it is absolutely certain that Christ is the son of this one

God, it is equally certain that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit
are not at the same time that one God but only the Father is, since
Christ is not the Son of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit all at the same time, but only is the Son of the Father.

But now, someone may still question whether Christ is that one
God-or at least of the same essence with him-due to the altogether
magnificent and thoroughly sublime things which are attributed to him
in the divine scriptures. But such a one should consider29 that there
is nothing either more magnificent or sublime attributed to Christ in
Scripture than the fact that everyone owes him divine worship. But
Christ had this [right to be worshipped] from God the Father as a man.
46 ISCA JOURNAL

Therefore, nothing can be found attributed to Christ in the divine testi-

monies so magnificent and so sublime that it cannot be consistent with
him as a man (i.e., granting that something other than the sublimity
and magnificence of the thing does not forbid it). Moreover, in the first
place, the words of Christ himself prove that God the Father established
that everyone owes divine worship to Christ as a man. In Jn. 5:22-23 he
says that the Father does not judge anyone but has given all judgment to
the Son, so that all should honor the Son just as they should honor the
Father. From this judgment given by the Father to the Son, it becomes
evident that divine worship should be given to him, owed to him by
all. But Christ himself testifies himself in this same passage (i.e., a little
later in v. 27) that the Father gave this judgment to the Son as a man,
when he says that the Father gave the power of rendering judgment to
the Son, because he is the Son of man. Next, the words of the Apostle
Paul in Philippians chapter 2 prove this same thing, where he treats of
the exaltation of Christ on account of his obedience unto the death
of the cross. In verse 9 and following he states that on account of that
obedience God so greatly exalted him, that at the name of Jesus every
knee ought to bow. What else is this but divine worship, owed to him
by all? But it is certain that Jesus was exalted as a man for the aforesaid
reason. That is, obedience unto the death of the cross only falls on him
as a man. 30 Paul's very words make it clear that he [Christ] himself was
obviously exalted, who was obedient unto the death of the cross.
In brief, there is nothing either so sublime or so lowly attributed
to Christ in the Holy Scriptures that it cannot properly pertain to that
man Jesus of Nazareth. Wherefore, there was no reason for inventing in
one and the same Christ two natures-that is, essences-divine and hu-
man. And since the excellence of the Father over Christ is most clearly
attested in the Holy Scriptures, there is no reason to flee to that distinc-
tion of a divine and human nature, and of asserting that the Scripture
in that case31 speaks not according to the divine but only according to
the human nature of Christ. This is so: when Christ himself says that
the Father is greater than he On. 14:28); when the Son admits that he
does not know the day and hour of the future divine judgment, but
ALAN w. GOMES 47

only the Father knows (Mk. 13:32); when, now raised from the dead, he
testifies that the Father is no less his God than the God of the disciples
Qn. 20:17), and which he-already translated into heaven and clearly
glorified-affirms four times in one verse (Rev. 3: 12); and finally when,
to cite but a few instances, 32 he states that he received from God the
Father his doctrine, his words, his signs, all his works, together with his
authority and power. Elsewhere, he said that those things are not his
own but of him who had sent him, i.e., the Father. (See John 5: 19, 20,
22, 23, 27, 30, 36, 43; 7:16; 10:25; 17:2.) Nor should I fail to mention
the nearly countless testimonies that clearly confirm the eminence of
the Father over the Son.
When the adversaries see in many of the aforesaid testimonies
words that they think can in no way be taken per se according to the hu-
man nature of Christ, they seek refuge in two ways: (1) they refer those
testimonies, which are related there, to eternal generation, through
which the Son is produced33 by the Father Himself. (2) [they explain
them] through a certain figure of speech, which is called "the commu-
nication of attributes" (communicatio idiomatum), [teaching that] what is
[characteristic] of only one nature is attributed separately to the other. 34
Now, in order for the sacred testimonies to be interpreted in this
astonishing way, it is first necessary for the [doctrine of] eternal gen-
eration and the two-fold nature of Christ to be clearly proven on other
grounds. 35 Otherwise, that interpretation is most rightly rejected and
confuted merely by denying these [two] things.
Besides, that which has to do with that generation, since it is eternal
(as they36 wish), must also be natural and necessary. Consequently, in no
way can anything be referred to it which is said either to have been given
to Christ by the Father in time (as they say), or is said to have been given
by free will, or certainly unto some goal and by some counsel. And it is
just these sorts of things which are recounted in these very testimonies.
For "eternity" and "in time" are altogether opposed to one another, and
indeed "not natural" and "necessary" likewise oppose "from free will,"
and "given unto some end and by some counsel."
Now, regarding the communication of attributes: This cannot in
48 ISCA JOURNAL

any way effect that what [is characteristic] of one nature [BFP 1.813]
alone can be attributed separately to the other. However, it could per-
haps effect that what is [characteristic] of one nature might be accom-
modated to the person simpliciter. For no one, for the sake of example,
would say, "My soul is tall"; or "My soul is dressed in an ankle-length
robe"; or "My soul is washed in a bath." This is so even though a man's
soul is so conjoined to his body (to which the [previously mentioned]
examples apply) that one and the same man consists of each. This is just
as they would have one and the same Christ Jesus consist of a divine
and human nature or, as others state it, of God and man. Add to these
[observations] that in whatever way this communication of attributes
might be admitted in passages speaking about Christ, this is nothing
other than to make a mockery of the holy words and to leave the reader
completely uncertain about the meaning of the passage and most often
concerning the issue itself.
But they might say that there are certain things that are completely
impossible to explain without acknowledging the communication of at-
tributes and, in turn, the two natures in Christ. Such is the case when all
things are said to have been created by God through Jesus Christ (Eph.
3:9), as indeed the Greek codices read. Likewise, [the communication of
attributes and the two natures in Christ must be acknowledged] when it
is said that the Son of man was in heaven before he ascended to it with
his disciples looking on Qn. 6:62), and also that he is "in heaven," even
though he made the statement while yet on earth Qn. 3: 13).
I respond that there is no reason why these things should not prop-
erly be referred to the man Jesus of Nazareth. For when "all things" are
said to have been created by God through Jesus Christ, one ought not
to understand those "things" as referring to the creation of which Moses
most diligently wrote in the beginning of his history. For there Moses,
when relating the act of creating, makes no mention of any person who
had any part in it beyond God himself. But here [i.e., in Eph. 3:9] it is
necessary to note that there is God on the one hand, and on the other
him who is understood by the name "Jesus Christ," since God is said to
have created through Jesus Christ. Besides, Christ is never said to have
ALAN w. GOMES 49

created universally and generally, but [it is said that] the creation was
made through him. And so no mention was made of Christ, or of him
who in Paul is understood by the name "Christ," in the creation that
Moses relates. For Moses made mention of God as creating and not,
moreover, as the one through whom creation was made. Therefore, the
passage of Paul should be received as concerning other created things,
and the expression "all things" should be referred to all things that per-
tain to the new creation, which is agreed to have been made through the
man Jesus of Nazareth. Paul says the same thing elsewhere, namely, that
all things were made new (2 Cor. 5: 17). Nevertheless, since it is certain
that there are an infinite number of things which remained in the same
state in which they were before, there the expression "All things" ought
to be referred to all those things that pertain to God's covenant with
men and to religion, and ought to be restricted to those things just as we
contend that it ought to be done in the passage above [i.e., Eph. 3:9].
Similarly, concerning the fact that the Son of man was in heaven
before his visible ascension to it: this can and ought to be referred, truly
and properly, to the man Jesus of Nazareth. For that man truly, after
he was born of the virgin but before he announced the Gospel, was
raptured into heaven. There he was taught by God himself those things
which he was going to reveal to the human race. This has so much the
appearance of truth that it seems it could not have happened otherwise.
The force to be inferred in these words, therefore, is not without any
cause, and indeed not contrary and opposed to all reason. But those
things in this and in other similar passages ought to be taken at face
value.37 If this is done, the meaning will become plain. 38
Now, in Jn. 3: 13, although it is commonly read "who is in heaven,"
can nevertheless be read from the Greek as "who was in heaven" -just as
Erasmus, Beza, and others have taught. And so this passage will become
similar to the preceding one [i.e., Jn. 6:62]. But if, nevertheless, some-
one tenaciously wishes to retain the common39 reading, it still would not
follow that there was some other essence or nature in Christ besides a
human one, according to which, evidently, he was then truly in heaven.
For in that case, [the expression] "to be in heaven" would thus need to
50 ISCA JOURNAL

be taken so that it can be consistent with his human nature, or to him

as a man, to which these words distinctly refer. And no doubt the words
found in that same passage, in which it is stated that the Son of man
ascended to heaven and no one beside him, will also have to be taken
in that sense. For these words cannot rightly be taken at face value 40
either according to the human or according to the divine nature, unless,
perhaps, it is granted that that man truly ascended to heaven before he
uttered these words. But, when this [fact] 41 is not acknowledged (even
though utterly true and, as I said, clarifying the entire matter), then
these words will be taken as many others have interpreted them. That
is, the "ascent into heaven" will be taken as meaning the penetration
(as it were) into the knowledge of divine things. And, similarly, we shall
interpret "to be in heaven" as referring to the knowledge of divine things
already secured.
But there are those who think that the two natures in Christ-
divine and human-can be inferred especially from the fact that he both
is and is called the "Son of God." It is through the communication of
attributes that the man himself, Jesus of Nazareth, is said to be the Son
of God. For otherwise, how, they ask, could a mere 42 man, i.e., a man
not joined with the divine essence itself, be the Son of God? Is it not
necessary that, just as a human begets a human, in the same way God
begets God?
I respond as follows. If it could be established that it were possible
for God to beget from his own substance something similar to himself,
just as humans and other animals do, it would seem that this argument
would have some force. But not only can this not be established but
the contrary is easily proven. For both from the very agreement of all
Trinitarians, a well as from plain reason itself, it can be understood that
the substance (i.e., the essence) of God can in no way be divided or mul-
tiplied. Moreover, what we already stated above evidently demonstrates
that the entire, numerically one, and altogether same essence cannot be
common in many persons. Clearly, it is necessary that there are no fewer
individual essences than there are persons. Moreover, the Scripture suf-
ficiently declares the way in which God generates something similar to
ALAN w. GOMES 51

himself, affirming in many passages that pious men, but chiefly those
having faith in Christ, are born of God and begotten by him. This is
so to the extent that elsewhere it denies that these were born of men
(e.g., Jn. 1: 13). Why, then, do we not here [i.e., in Jn. 1: 13] contrive
two natures, divine and human, denying that mere men can be begot-
ten and born of God, and denying [that those born of God] have been
given birth from humans? 43 Therefore, we acknowledge here that one
and the same man can be considered in a two-fold way-namely, by way
of the spirit and by way of the flesh-and (accordingly) is or is not a Son
of God or a Son of man. Even so, let us acknowledge that the very same
man, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Son of man according to the flesh and is
the Son of God according to the Spirit. Again, according to the flesh
he is not the Son of God (if you please), and according to the Spirit he
is not the Son of man-although, as we shall say later, Jesus of Nazareth
is acknowledged by Scripture to be the Son of God even according to
the flesh. Moreover, that very distinction in Christ himself is confirmed
most clearly in the words of the Apostle Paul, who testifies in Rom. 1:3-4
that one and the same Son of God was begotten from the seed of David
according to the flesh, but according to the spirit of sanctification was
defined as the Son of God.
But someone might say that the sacred scriptures do not merely
call Christ the Son of God but also the only begotten and proper44 Son
of God. Consequently, it is necessary [to conclude] that he was born of
God in some singular way, beyond all other sons of God.
Here I freely confess and acknowledge that singularity. But I do
not therefore grant that this singularity consists in the fact that Christ
was begotten from the very substance of God while others were not.
For it has already been shown that the substance of God can neither
be divided nor multiplied, nor can the very same, numerically identical
[substance] be common to many persons. The singularity of Christ's na-
tivity from God consists in other things, which can be understood from
the sacred testimonies themselves:

1. First of all, [this singularity] consists in the fact that Christ, at the
52 ISCA JOURNAL

very moment he was born a man, was the Son of God, and thus is
the Son of God by nature; other men are not sons of God in this
way. And so, as the Scripture seems to say elsewhere in view of this
reason, other people besides Christ ought not to be called "born"
but rather "adopted" sons of God. For that man Jesus of Nazareth,
who is called the Christ, was born the Son of God, because he was
conceived in the womb of the virgin not from male seed but by the
Holy Spirit and by the power of the Most High. [BFP 1.814] For
this very reason the angel of God predicted to the virgin that what
would be born from the virgin would be called the Son of God (Lk.
1:35). From this it appears that even according to the flesh he can
deservedly be called the Son of God. And this has occurred and is
so for no one else.

2. Next, in the case of other men God grants his spirit, by which
they are sons of God, to a limited degree. 45 But he granted his spirit
to the man Christ without measure, so that he was made a more
eminent46 Son of God than before, as in Jn. 3:35-assuming that
Jn. 3:35 has reference to Christ. For that passage reads simply, "For
God gives his spirit without measure," with no mention made of
Christ. These words also could aptly describe the entire ministry of
preaching the Gospel, where God-not sparingly and restrictively
but abundantly and lavishly-has granted his spirit to the human
race. Whatever the case, it is certain from the divine writings them-
selves that God could have granted to other individuals many spiri-
tual gifts that he did not give. But to the man Christ there is no
spiritual [gift] that he could give that he did not give. Wherefore,
it is rightly said that in a singular way he was born of God beyond
others.

3. Additionally, the man Christ alone secured both immortality

and the glorification of his body before all others, and shall have
been constituted both heir and Lord of the universe, 47 in which
matters especially his likeness with God (and, therefore, his divine
ALAN w. GOMES 53

filiation) is comprised. From this it appears that he, in a singular

way beyond all others, was born of God. And since it was abso-
lutely certain from the very beginning that these things were going
to occur, he was, for these very reasons, already deservedly called
the only begotten and proper Son of God while he was yet abiding
on earth.

I omit certain other things, on account of which the man Christ

can rightly be called the only begotten and proper Son of God. But I
only call to mind that Isaac, when he was offered to God on the moun-
tain, was called the sole48 and only begotten Son of Abraham (Gen.
22:2, 12; Heb. 11:17), even though Abraham at that time had another
Son truly born from himself no less than Isaac, i.e., Ishmael. For the
way in which, nevertheless, it is shown that Isaac could be called his sole
and only begotten son is the same or similar to the way in which it will
be demonstrated that the man Christ can be called the only begotten or
proper Son of God, even though it is the case that others are similarly
born of God.
So that this entire matter might be better understood, let all the
passages of the sacred writings be examined, which explain either tacitly
or openly the reasons Christ is called the Son of God. For nowhere will
you find that cause expressed or indicated that he was begotten from
the very substance or essence of God. But you will find that he is and
is called the Son of God either on account of his mode of conception
in the womb of his mother; or on account of the sanctification of God
and in his being sent into the world; or on account of his resurrection
from the dead, which certainly was followed by his glorification and ex-
altation over all created things; or on account of the eternal priesthood
and reign, which he had from God; or on account of other things of
this kind. Moreover, see the following passages, on the basis of which we
have concluded some of those things stated above: Lk. 1:35; Jn. 10:36;
Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:3, 4, 8; Ps. 2:6-7; Heb. 5:5.
54 ISCA JOURNAL

Notes
1. Alan W. Gomes, "The Value of Historical Theology for Apologetics," chap. in Reasons for
Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith, Norman L. Geisler and Chad V. Meister, eds.

(Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 169-181.

2. Ibid., 179.
3. Ibid., 178-9.
4. Ibid., 179.
5. Ibid.
6. The full title is, Argumenti pro trino & uno Deo, omnium potissimi, aut certe usitatissimi, exami-
natio, sive tractatus, de Deo, Christo, & Spiritu Sancto, cuius rei occasione tota de re, praecipue vero

de Christi divinitate ac natura quaestio, breviter explicatur. (The strongest, or certainly most common,
arguments of all for the triune God: an examination. Or, a tract concerning God, Christ, and the

Holy Spirit, on the occasion of which matter the entire subject, but principally the question of the na-

ture and divinity of Christ, is briefly explained.) This tract is contained in the Bibliotheca Fratrum

Polonorum quos Unitarios vacant (BFP) (Amsterdam: 1668) 1.811-814. (Note that the first two

volumes of the nine-volume BFP comprise the Opera omnia [Complete Works) of Socinus.)
7. The single best treatment of the history of sixteenth-century Unitarianism is undoubt-
edly Earl Morse Wilbur's two-volume History of Unitarianism (Boston: Beacon, 1945). Wil-
bur, himself a Unitarian, presents a sympathetic portrait but his command of the primary
sources and attention to detail is unequalled. For a short summary, Wilbur also has an
article-length piece entitled "Faustus Socinus, Pioneer," Hibl 33 (1935): 538-48. Another
standard work is David Cory's Faustus Socinus (Boston: Beacon, 1932). H.J. Mclachlan,
Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), 3-24,

provides a compact summary of the background to Socinus. Brief discussions of Socinian

history are also available in Alexander Gordon, "The Sozzini and Their School," The Theo-
logical Review 65 (1879): 293-322; Zbigniew Ogonowski, "Faustus Socinus," in Shapers of the

Religious Traditions in Germany, Switzerland, and Poland, 1560-1600 (ed. Jill Raitt; New Ha-

ven: Yale University Press, 1981), 195-97; and George H. Williams, The Radical Reforma-
tion (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 749-63. More recently, Lech Szczucki has written a
helpful and concise article on "Socinianism" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (4
vols.; ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 4:83-86. (Note: This
footnote is a condensation and summary of a more detailed list of references that I have
provided in a forthcoming article entitled "Some Observations on the Theological Method
ofFaustus Socinus [1539-1604]," WTJ 70 [2008].)
ALAN w. GOMES 55

8. Regarding the personal correspondence of the Sozzini, see Giampaolo Zucchini, "Unpub-
lished letters added to the letters of Fausto Sozzini, 1561-1568," chap. in Socinianism and
its Role in the Culture of the XVI-th to XV111-th Centuries (Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sci-

ences, 1983), 17-24; Ralph Lazzaro, "Four Letters from the Socinus-Calvin Correspondence
(1549)," chap. in Italian Reformation Studies in Honor of Laelius Socinus, ed. John A. Tedeschi
(Flor-,ence: Felice Le Monnier, 1965), 215-230; and David Willis, "The Influence of Lae-
lius Socinus on Calvin's Doctrines of the Merits of Christ and the Assurance of Faith,"
chap. in Italian Reformation Studies, 231-241.
9. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Transylvania and Poland were among the most
religiously tolerant countries in Europe. Accordingly, quite a few antitrinitarians settled
there because their views were either not proscribed or at least not as vigorously persecuted
as elsewhere.
10. I discuss Socinus's doctrine of scripture in considerable detail in my forthcoming "Some
Observations on the Theological Method of Faustus Socinus ( 1539-1604). "
11. "Demonstratur, ... nos Christum imitari posse, hancque esse aeternae salutis viam: ob
idque Christum iure Servatorem nostrum appellari" (Socinus, De lesu Christo Servatore,
2.128).
12. Socinus advanced this rather quirky and possibly novel theory of Christ's literal, bodily
ascent into heaven, which George H. Williams calls a "pre-ascension ascension," i.e., an
ascension that took place before Christ's final, visible ascension after his resurrection. Soci-
nus cites the Apostle Paul's rapture into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12: 1-5) as a precedent.
Besides the example of Paul, Socinus argues for this "pre-ascension ascension" particularly
from Jn. 3: 13 and 6:64, as well as from Moses' ascent on Mt. Sinai to receive the oracles of
God (Ex. 19 and 24), pressing the typical likeness between Moses and Christ. This theory,
among other things, allows him to reconcile his humanitarian Christology with the texts
that speak of the Son of Man's descent from heaven, granting that his Christo logy denies
Christ's preexistence. I have dealt with this unusual theory in considerable detail, with spe-
cial attention to how it fits systemically into Socinus's overall theology, in a forthcoming ar·
ticle to be published in the Harvard Theological Review entitled "The Rapture of the Christ:
The 'Pre-Ascension Ascension' of Jesus in the Theology of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604)."
(The article is scheduled to appear sometime in 2008.)
13. Indeed, Socinus says that to deny religious worship to Christ is a sin more grievous than
homicide! (" ... multo gravius peccatum est Christum non adorare quam hominem oc·
ciderre. ")See Faustus Socinus, Epitome colloquii Racoviae habiti an no 1601 (ed. Lech Szczucki
56 ISCA JOURNAL

and Janusz Tazbir; critical Latin text printed in Warsaw, 1966), lines 789-91. For a good
treatment of this internecine debate over the worship and invocation of Christ see George
H. Williams, "The Christological Issues Between Francis David and Faustus Socinus dur-
ing the Disputation on the Invocation of Christ, 1578-1579," in Antitrinitarianism in the
Second Half of the 16th Century (ed. Robert Dan and Antal Pirnat; Studia Humanitatis 5;

ed. T. Klaniczay; Leiden: Brill, 1982) 287-321.

14. Posnan is a city in west-central Poland.
15. Assertiones theologicae de trino & uno Dea, adversus novas Samosatenicos, in BFP 2.4 23-4 38.

The term "Samosateans" refers to Paul of Samosata, a third-century Bishop of Antioch in

Syria, who put forth a "dynamic monarchian" Christology. According to this view, Jesus
was a mere man but one inspired by the power (dunamis) of God. Socinus and his follow-
ers were thus sometimes called "Samosateans," though on other occasions they were less
accurately labeled "Arians." Note that the Arians believed in Christ's preexistence, even if
not an eternal preexistence. Socinus, like Paul of Samosata, did not believe that Christ had
any existence whatever before his early conception. (As already noted, he did believe this
conception to have been virginal and therefore miraculous.)
16. See BFP 1.811. Actually, through a printer's error this tract appears twice (i.e., is duplicated)
in volume one but, as the editor noted, it ought to have been placed in volume two, before
page 423, i.e., ahead of the Assertiones, since the tract has reference to these.
17. Missio.

18. "Quod ad Spiritum sanctum attinet, is nusquam diserte atque ad literam (ut dicitur) in
Scriptura Deus appellatur." I have translated the Latin masculine pronoun "is" as "it" rath-
er than "he," in keeping with Socinus's denial of the Spirit's personhood. Socinus uses the
masculine pronoun, as he must on grammatical grounds, because the antecedent "Holy
Spirit" (Spiritum sanctum) consists of a masculine noun and adjective.
19. "... ad literam (ut dicitur) ... "
20. I.e., in some passage of Scripture.
21. I.e., in the same passage of Scripture.
22. "Opposita sunt enim inter se Unus, & Trinus" =(lit.) "One and Three are opposed among
themselves."
23. "Millies" ="on 1000 occasions," "1000 times."
24. "... simplici Dei nomine .... " =(lit.) "with the simple/single name 'God."'
25. The term "Adversaries," of course, refers to his Trinitarian opponents.
26. "... simplex Dei nomen est positum .... " See note 24.
ALAN w. GOMES 57

27. I added the separate enumeration of these points (as "A," "B," and "C") to aid in clarifying
the structure of Socinus' s argument.
28. I have used the masculine pronoun in my translation here because Socinus is presenting
his argument on Trinitarian terms.
29. Or, ".. .let such a one consider. ... "
30. Lit., "... only falls against that very man."
31. "In that case" = in the case of statements that make the Father more excellent than the
Son.
32. "... ne singula recenseam ... " = "Not that I might enumerate/review each individual [in-
stance]."
33. "Habuerit."
34. "Alterum, quod per figuram quandam sermonis, quae Idiomatum communicatio appel-
latur, quod unius tantum naturae est, alteri separatim tribuatur."
35. "... on other grounds ... "= "ex aliis," lit., "from other things."
36. I.e., the Trinitarians.
37. "... sed ea, ut sonant, accipere ... oportet." = (Lit.) "...but those things ought to be taken as
they sound .... "
38. "Et sic plana erunt omnia" = "And thus all things will become plain."
39. Or, "Vulgate" (vulgatam), i.e., the Latin translation of the Bible.
40. "... ut ipsa verba sonant..." =(lit.) "as the words sound."
41. I.e., of a literal, spatial rapture of Christ, as stated above.
42. Purus.
43. "... nee ex ipsis hominibus ortum ducere" =" ... nor to have been born from humans them·
selves."
44. Proprius ="proper," "special," "particular."
45. "Ad mensuram."
46. Sublimior.
4 7. "Universorum," which could also be taken as "of all things."
48. Unicum.
58 ISCA JOURNAL