From the book
Centuries of Meditations
Thomas Traherne · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordSocinians were adherents of the anti-Trinitarian theological tradition associated with Fausto Sozzini.
- In TraherneThe name appears in the discussion of why the Son, rather than an angel, undertakes redemption.
- In this editionHistorical identification comes from the supplied 2026 note.
- A place to beginNames the Socinians and answers the charge of injustice through the Son’s willingness, capacity, and benefit.
Meaning
Socinians were adherents of the anti-Trinitarian theological tradition associated with Fausto Sozzini. The supplied edition identifies their denial of Christ’s deity and rejection of satisfaction for sin as the particular positions at issue here. Traherne’s hostile description belongs to his argument, not to a neutral definition.
Use in the book
The name appears in the discussion of why the Son, rather than an angel, undertakes redemption. Traherne knows that punishing someone else for an offender’s wrongdoing raises a question of equity. His answer turns on Christ’s voluntary undertaking, ability to accomplish it, and exaltation through it. An unwilling substitute would suffer injustice; an incapable substitute would make the arrangement foolish; the substitute’s ultimate harm would make it cruel. Traherne claims that none of those conditions applies to Christ.
This is a tightly focused response to an objection, rather than an exposition of all Socinian beliefs. The meditation combines the dignity of Christ’s priesthood with the honour of suffering for God and the worth of the people for whom he suffers. Its polemical edge therefore serves a devotional purpose: the reader is to recognize both divine justice and the astonishing value placed on humanity. The following meditation draws out that consequence by urging the redeemed person to recognize an inheritance in the world.
Calling the opponents blind or enemies of Christ’s deity expresses Traherne’s confessional judgment. Readers can understand why he joins the justice of substitution to divine personhood without adopting his characterization of those who disagree.
Places to read
In this edition
Historical identification comes from the supplied 2026 note. The primary meditation gives Traherne’s rebuttal, not the opponents’ own words; it should not be cited as a balanced account of their theology.
Source note
Primary text: II.33–342. Supplied 2026 editorial note 114 to II.33 identifies Sozzini, Socinian teaching, and the objection to satisfaction.