Semitic Lanrnsses

parts, Leipsic, 1828 40; E. Tagart, Sketches of the Lives and Characters of the Leading Reform­ers of the 16th Century, London, 1843; P. Lecler, Fauste Socin. Biographique et crittique, Geneva, 1885; Bayle, Dictionary, v. 168 180.

For the history of Socinianism consult: Bibliotheca

Fratrum Polonorum, 6 vols., Amsterdam, 1828; B. Lamy,

Hist. du Socinianiame, Paris, 1723• S. F. Lauterbach,

Ariano Socinianismus olim in Polonia, Leipsic, 1725; M.

Maimbourg, The Mist. of Arianism, . . with Account of

the . . . Socinian and Arian Controversies, 2 vols., Lon­

don, 1728 29; F. S. Bock, Hist. Antitrinitariorum, maaime

Socinianorum. 2 vols., K3nigaberg, 1774 84; T. Lindsey

Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and

Worship from the Reformation, London, 1783; A. Fuller,

The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Bxamined and Com­

pared, Edinburgh, 1815; F. Trechsel, Die protestantischen

Antitrinitarier vor Paustus Socinus, 2 parts, Heidelberg,

1839 44; O. Foek, Der Socinianismus each seiner Stellunp

in der Gvaamrntentwickelung des chriatlichen Geistes, i. 121 

493 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA

263, Kiel, 1847; R. Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography. 3 vols., London, 1850; W. Cunningham, Historical Theol­ogy, vol. ii., Edinburgh, 1862; E. L. T. Henke, Vorieaunpen aber neuere Kirchenpeschichte, i. 453 eqq•, Halls, 1874; J. Ferenca, Kleiner Unitarserspiepel, Vienna, 1879; J. H. Allen, in American Church History Series, x. 4996, New York, 1894; H. Dalton, Laaciana. Berlin, 1898; W. J. van Doruwen, in ThT, 1898, parts 1 3; J. F. Hurst, Hist. of Rationalism, revised ed., New York, 1901; O. Koniecki, lieachichte der Reformation in Polen, pp. 198 220, Breslau, 1901; G. Krause, Reformation and Gegenreformation im

. . Polen, Posen, 1901; A. C. McGiffert, Protestant Thought before Kant, pp. 107 118, New York, 1911; the works on the history of doctrine, e.g., Harnack, Dogma, v. vii., especially vii. 119 167.

SOCINUS, LAELIUS (LELIO SOZZINI): Anti­trinitarian, and uncle of Faustus Socinus (q.v.); b. at Siena in 1525; d. at Zurich May 16, 1562. One of the Italian free inquirers, he left Italy about 1544 to escape the Inquisition, and, going to Switzer­land, found a home in Zurich. His candid intelli­gence and pleasant manner were the cause of much homage from the leading German and Swiss Re­formers. Later on, though he did not expressly deny the doctrine of the Trinity, suspicion arose against him, and he needed the assistance of Bul­linger to appease Calvin, and to turn aide the doubt as to his belief. Thereafter he abstained from con­troversy, and kept his opinions more to himself. At the time of his visit to Italy in 1560, on the occa­sion of his father's death, his correspondence brought upon his house the ill repute of heresy, so that the family estate was confiscated to the Inquisition, and he returned to Zurich to spend there the last two years of his life in poverty, and yet in peace and prestige due to the friendship of Sigismund II. of Poland. He published De hwreticis, an lint perse­quendi . . doctorum virorum . . . sententim (Mag­deburg [Basel], 1554); and De sacramentis dissertth do (Freistadt, Holland, 1654).

BiBLtoasAPHy: J. C. F. Hoefer, Nouvelle biographie pbrale, a.v., 46 vols., Paris, 1855 66; J. H. Allen, in American Church History Series, x. 49 56, New York, 1894; and the literature under SOCIN08, FAUsTUs.

SOCRATES, sec'ra tiz: Greek church historian; b. at Constantinople c. 380.

I. Life: Even in ancient times nothing seems to have been known of the life of Socrates except what was gathered from notices in his " Church History." His birth and education are related in V., xxiv. 9; his teachers were the grammarian Helladius and Ammonius, who came to Constantinople from Alex­andria, where they had been heathen priests (V., xvi. 9). A revolt, accompanied by an attack upon the heathen temples, had forced them to flee. This revolt is dated about 390 (cf. she annotations of Reading and Hussey to V., xvi. 1). That Socrates later profited by the teaching of the sophist Troilus, is not proven; no certainty exists as to his precise vocation, although it may be inferred from his work that he was a layman. On the title page of his his­tory, he is designated as a scholasticus (lawyer). In later years Socrates traveled and visited among other places Paphlagonia and Cyprus (cf. Hist. ccd., I., xii. 8, II., xxxviii. 30).

IL His " Church History ": Socrates' work on church history was first edited in Greek by R. Stephen, on the basis of Codex Regius 1443 (Paris, 1544); a translation into Latin by Johannes

Christophorson (1612) is important for its various readings. The fundamental edition, however, was

produced by Valesius (Paris, 1668), Period, who used Codex Regius, a Codex Vati 

Purpose, canus, and a Codex Florentinus, and

Scope. also employed the indirect tradition

of Theodorus Lector (Codex Leonis Alladi). The history covers the years 305 439, and was finished about 439, in any case during the lifetime of Emperor Theodosius, i.e., before 450 (cf. VIL, xxii. 1; fuller details in Jeep, Que­lenuntersuchungen au den grieehwchen Kirchenhw­torikern in New dahrbucher fur Phillologie and Padagogik, xiv. 137 sqq). The purpose of the history is to give a continuation of the work of Eusebius (I., i.). It relates in simple language and without panegyric what the Church has experienced from the days of Constantine to the writer's time. Ecclesiastical dissensions occupy the foreground; for when the Church is at peace there is nothing for the church historian to relate (VII., xlviii. 7). The fact that, besides treating of the Church, the work also deals with Arianism and with political events is defended in the preface to book V. Socrates seems to have owed the impulse to write his work to a certain Theodorus, who is alluded to in the proemium to bk. II. as " a holy man of God " and seems therefore to have been a monk or one of the higher clergy.

The history in its present form is not a first edi­tion. This is shown in the opening of the second book, where Socrates relates that he has thoroughly

revised books I. II. He has done this Sources. because in these books he had orig 

inally followed Rufinus, and in books III. VII. he had drawn partly from Rufinus and partly from other sources. Then, from the works of Athanasius and the letters of prominent men of his time, he learned that Rufinus was not trust­worthy, and was therefore induced to revise his work, and add the numerous documents scattered through the first two books. That the revision was not confined to these two books, but extended to the following ones, is shown by the erasure of the repetition at the end of the sixth book in the sec­ond Florentine manuscript. This passage proves also that the first edition was not oxlly prepared but published. An attempt to state the sources used by Socrates was first made in a thorough manner by Jeep. It was shown that Socrates usually makes express mention of the source of his information. Geppert (see bibliography) offers a systematic anal­ysis of these sources as follows; (1) Rufinus is often transcribed (I., xii., xv., II., i.; etc.), often quoted without acknowledgment from the Greek tranda­tion by Gelasius of Cwsarea; (2) Eusebius, De tits Condantini, cited in I., i., viii., xvi.; etc.; (3) Athanasius, De synodis, cited II., xxxvii.; and above all the Apologia contra Arianos (cf. the pref­ace to book II.); (4) the collections of the acts of the councils by the Macedonian Sabinus, cited I., via., II., xv.; etc.; (5) Eutropius, who is nowhere cited, although the comparison of Socrates II., xv. with Eutropius K., ix. shows the use of this author; (6) the Fasti, to whom Socrates is indebted for his political and semi political data. Formally,

Socrates

Soerearea THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 494

Socrates is sometimes in accord with Idatius, some­

times with the Chronicon paschale, and occasionally

with Marcellinus Comes. It is surprising that all

the Olympiads are incorrectly stated by two

years; (7) the list of the bishops of Conatanti­

nople, Alexandria, Antioch, and probably also of

Rome and Jerusalem. For Constantinople, the

bishops of the Arian and Novatian parties are also

noted. Jeep believes that other sources have been

used, for instance, Philostorgios, Eunapius, Auxa­

non, and the letters of Constantine. Hamack and

Geppert conjecture the use of biographies of the

emperors. This is not proven and seems especially

improbable for the time of Constantine, since Soc­

rates expressly states in the preface to book V. that

he was unable to obtain data concerning the polit­

ical events of that time and observes that hence­

forth he would write what he himself saw or what

he had been able to learn from eye witnesses. The

composition of the " History " is not seldom me­

chanical. Socrates often cites Eusebius and Atha­

nasius literally (ii. 37) and it not infrequently hap­

pens that he copies his sources almost word for

word. Yet criticism of the sources is not lacking,

as in the fact that recognition of the untrustworthi­

ness of Rufinus induced Socrates to rewrite his work.

Socrates was one of the most celebrated men of

his time, and could fully appreciate Hellenic dis­

cipline, of which he says that Christ

Author's and his disciples looked upon it as

Limitations neither harmful nor divine, therefore

and Rela  every individual should be allowed to

tionships. take the stand he pleases, either for or

against it. Moreover, although the

Holy Scriptures reveal divine dogmas to us and re­

vive our piety the real life and faith nevertheless,

they do not give training in logic, by the aid of

which we must meet the adversaries of the truth;

this, however, is essential, since the enemy is best

combated with his own weapons. Socrates did not

possess real learning; he relates simply, rarely cut­

ting the thread of his descriptions by reflections, as,

for instance, in III., vii., xvi. He had also little

interest in mere theology. For him, the principal

factor in Christianity was the doctrine of the Trin­

ity, but he did not feel the need of conceiving this

distinctly and intelligently and of formulating it.

He essentially agrees with his citation from Eva­

grius' Monachicum (III., vii. 23): " We must bow

down in silence before the unutterable." This in­

difference of Socrates to theology, perhaps also an

inborn mildness of temperament, determined his

attitude toward the ecclesiastical disputes of his

time; he was opposed to the use of force against

heretics (VIL, xli., cf. xxix.). He does not judge

harshly even the Arians, although he regarded them

as notorious heretics (I., viii. 1 2). His attitude

toward the Novatians was especially friendly; he

reproaches Celestine with having persecuted the

Roman Novatians (VII., xi.), and considers seri­

ously whether the hard fate that befell John Chrys­

ostom was not a punishment for his having des­

troyed Novatian churches (VI., xix. 7). He often

alludes to the Novatians specifically (I., x., II.,

xxxviii.; etc.), and is remarkably well informed

regarding their history. These facts have been ex 

plained by the assertion that Socrates himself was a Novatian, but this is incorrect, at least for the time when he wrote his " History." In V., xx. 1, he speaks of the Novatians in the same way as of the Arians, the Macedonians, and the Eunomians. The personal relations of Socrates with Auxanon, who had been present at the Nicene council and lived up to the time of the younger Theodosius (i. 13; cf. i. 10; Auxanon, whether of the same faith or not, could therefore give valuable information), and, on the other hand, the importance of the Novatian communities in Constantinople, explain his interest in this sect. It is self evident, in spite of his good will, that no great work could be expected from a writer like Socrates. He was well qualified to re­late personal experiences, but was not able to write history. This was the judgment of Valesius and it is confirmed by the later commentators. His re­ports are not reliable, and, in cases not a few, wrong. However, the later books, especially the sixth and seventh, contain much valuable information.

(G. LoEscacxic.)

BIHwoanAPHr: Other editions than those mentioned in the text are by G. Rending, Cambridge, 1720, reproduced in MPG, 1xvii.; R. Hussey, Oxford, 1853, reproduced by W. Bright, ib. 1878. Eng. travels. are in Bohn's Rcclo­siadical Library, London, 1851, and in NPNP, 2 ser., Vol. ii.

On the life of Socrates consult the introductions to the editions as given in the text and above; Fabricius Harles, B>bliotheca Graca, vii. 423 sqq., Hamburg, 1801; Ceillier, Auteure sacr6a, viii. 514 525; Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, pp. 332 333, Eng. travel., St. Louis. 1908; Schaff, Chris­tian Church, iii. 880881; DCB, iv. 709 711; %L, xi. 473­476. On his work consult the essay of Jeep mentioned in the text, and the introductions in the editions of the text; F. A. Holshausen, De Jontibus, quibue Socrates, So­zomenue, ac Theodordus in acribenda hidoria sacra uei aunt. Gottingen, 1825; J. G. Dowling, introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical Hiet., pp. 34 sqq., London, 1838; H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 97, Cambridge, 1882; Batiffol, Quodionea Philoetorpiana, Paris, 1891; Rauschen, in Jahrbuch der chriatlichen %irche, 1897, pp. 2 aqq.; F. Geppert, Die Quellen des %irchenhiaWrikera Socrates Scholwticua, Leipsic, 1898.
SOCRATES: Greek philosopher and teacher; b. in Peeania (on the east of Mt. Hymettus, near the modern Liopesi, 8 m. se. of Athens) 469 B.C.; d. at Athens in May or June, 399. As a youth he was a sculptor, but he later devoted his manhood, even till old age, to the assiduous practise of bringing to birth the thoughts and characters of his youthful countrymen, humorously likening his occupation to that of a midwife. In three battles  at Potidaea, at Defium, and at Amphipofis he proved himself a brave and efficient citizen soldier. At the age of sixty, as a senator the only instance in which he accepted office he showed his moral and political heroism by withstanding alone the excited passions, and for the time thwarting the perverse and vin­dictive purpose, of the people in their popular as­sembly. He also in 406 opposed the illegal dispo­sition of the trial of eight generals by a single vote. At the age of seventy he was accused of corrupting the youth, and not worshiping the gods of his country, tried before the popular dicastery, con­demned by a small majority of votes, and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock.

The philosophy of Socrates is not so much a sys­tem of doctrines as a spirit of inquiry and a method

495

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA

Socrates

St»reneen

of search for the truth. That method, the method of question and answer, was so characteristic of Socrates, and at the same time so full of life and power that it was adopted more or less by all his disciples and has ever since been known as the Socratic method. It is seen in its perfection in the " Dialogues " of Plato, which are the idealized con­versations of the idealized Socrates. The subject­matter of the Socratic philosophy is ethics in contra­distinction to physics; its aim is practical to the exclusion of barren speculation; and conscious ignorance, modesty, moderation, and pure and high morality are among its most marked characteristics.

The chief good, our being's end and aim, accord­ing to the Socratic ethics, is happiness, that well­being which results from well doing in obedience to the will of God and with the blessing of Heaven. Xenophon and Plato agree in making Socrates teach that he who knows justice is just, and the man who understands virtue is virtuous: in other words, he resolves all virtue into knowledge. But it is plain from both these writers that he used knowledge in a high and comprehensive sense un­usual in ethical treatises, but strikingly analogous to that in which it is used in the Scriptures. He makes knowledge identical with wisdom, and ig­norance with folly and sin, just as in the Bible piety is wisdom, and sin is folly: the wicked have no knowledge, while the righteous know all things.

Socrates believed in the existence of one supreme Divinity, the creator and disposer of the universe, all powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, per ' fectly wise and just and good. His method of dem­onstrating the existence of such a being was strictly Baconian, the same argument as Paley used in his Natural Theology. And what Xenophon records of his master of those unwritten laws in the soul of man which execute themselves, and make it impossible for any man to be unjust, or impure, or licentious, without paying the penalty (which proves a greater and better than any human law­giver), recalls Bishop Butler himself. Socrates be­lieved himself to be under the constant guidance of a divine voice, which always warned him when he was in  danger of going or doing wrong, and thus, indirectly, always led him in the right way; and he taught that every man might have the same divine guidance. He held the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the future life as strenuously as Plato did, but without those dreams and chimeras of its preexistence and successive tranamigrations by which the creed of the latter was disfigured. It was the beauty and glory of Socrates' character, that his doctrine of providence and prayer and a future state was the controlling principle of his life, and he believed that death was not an evil, but the highest good and the richest blessing. His teach­ings, illustrated by a conscientious, unselfish, heroic, missionary life, and sealed by a martyr's death, are the main secret of his power, and these exhibit him in his true relation to Christianity.

D. PERCY GILMORE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are the " Memorabilia " and " Sym 

paeiam of Xenophon Plato's " Apology., •. Sympo­

sium, ..Crito ' and • Phaedo," Plutarch's Deg'enw Socratic,

and Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Philosophers." To be

taken into account are the works on the history of philoso 

phy by H. Ritter, 4 vole., Oxford, 1838 48; W. A. But­ler, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1855; G. H. Lewes, 4 vola., Lon­don, 1857; J. B. Mayor, Ancient Philosophy, Cambridge, 1881; A. Schwegler, 3d ed., Freiburg, 1882; W. Windel­band, New York, 1893; J. E. Erdmann,vol. i., London, 1892; E. Zeller, 2 vols., 1897; F. Ueberweg, ed. Heinse, 9th ed., Berlin, 1901 05, Eng. eranal., of earlier edition, vol. i., London, 1875. Consult further: F. Charpentier, La Vie de Socrate, 3d ed., Paris, 1699, Eng. transl., London, 1758; R. Nam, An Essay on the Demon or Divination of Socrates, London, 1782; J. W. Hanne, Socrates ala Genius der Hu­manit4t, Brunswick, 1841; J. P. Potter, The Religion of Socrates, London, 1831; idem, Characteristics of the Greek Philosophers, Socrates and Plato, ib. 1845; E. M. Goulburn, Socrates, London, 1858; E. Goguel, Aridophane d Socrates, Strasburg, 1859; H. Schmidt, Sokratea, Halle, 1868; A. Garnier, Hiatoire do la morale, Paris, 1885; A: Chaignet, La Vie de Socrate, Paris, 1868; E. Alberti, Sokrates: sin Verauch fiber An naeh den Quellen, GSttingen, 1869; P. Mont6e, La Philosophic de Socrate, Arms, 1869; J. S. Blackie, Four Phase# of Morals, London, 1871; H. E. Manning, The Dmnon of Socrates, London, 1872; A. Fouill6e, La Philosophic de Socrate, 2 vols., Paris, 1874; C. Charaux, L'Ombre de Socrate, Paris, 1878; A. W. Benn, The Greek Philosophers, 2 vols., London, 1882; idem, The Philosophy of Greece, ib. 1898; A. B. Moss, Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus, London, 1885; C. du Prel, Die Myatik der alien Griechen, Leipsic, 1888; F. Dtlmmler, Akademika, Giessen, 1889; R. M. Wenley, Socrates and Christ, Lon­don, 1889; A. Wring, Die Lehre des Sokratea ale aocialea Reformayatem, Munich, 1895; R. W. Emerson, Tuw Un­published Essays, Boston, 1896; A. D. Godley, Socrates and Athenian Society in his Day, London, 1896; E. Pflei­derer, Sokratea, Plato and ihre Scheler, TVbingen, 1896; J. T. Forbes, Socrates, Edinburgh, 1905; E. Lange, Sok­miss, Giltersloh, 1906.

SODEN, HANS KARL HERMANN, FREIHERR VON: German Protestant; b. at Cincinnati, O., Aug. 16, 1852. He was educated at Esslingen, Urach, and the theological institute of Tabingen, and was then curate at Wildbad, near Stuttgart (1875,80), pastor at Dresden Striesen (1881 82), and archdeacon at Chemnitz (1883 86). Since 1887 he has been pastor of the Jerusalemkirche, Berlin, and in 1889 became privat docent for New Testa­ment exegesis at the university of the same city, where he has been associate professor since 1893. In theology he belongs to the liberal school, and has written Der Brief des Apostels Paulus do die Philipper (Freiburg, 1889); the volumes on He­brews, the Epistles of Peter, James, and Jude, Co­lossians, Ephesians, Philemon for the Handkom­mentar zum Neuen Testament (2 vols., 1890 91); Reisebriefe aus Paldatina (Berlin, 1898); Paldstina and seine Geschichte (Leipsie, 1899); Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer dltesten erreichbaren Textgeatalt (Berlin, 1902 aqq.); Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (1904); and Urchristliche Literaturgeachiehte (1905).
SODOM. See PeLEsTmE, II., 1 10.
SOERENSEN, ANDERS HERMAN VILHELM:

Danish clergyman; b. at Randers (a town of Jut­land, 118 m. n.w. of Copenhagen) June 27, 1840. He was graduated from the Randers Latin School (18.58), and from the University of Copenhagen (candidate in theology, 1865); with his wife he conducted in Copenhagen a school for girls, 1865­1874; in 1869 he was made chaplain at Fr6deriks­berg (a suburb of Copenhagen), in 1876 pastor in Taanum Homb6k (Viborg), and in 1890 pastor at Husby (Funen), his present charge. He is regarded as Denmark's greatest living authority on foreign

Sohm

Solomon THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 498

missions, and on this subject he is a well known

writer and speaker. His writings are characterized

by thoroughness. Notable among his productions

are his articles in the Nordisk Missionstidukrift,

which he has edited since 1899, and in Nordisk

Kirkeleksikon; also Vor Tida Afissionsforoentninger

og Missionsresuuater (1895); and Kina og Missions

rerne (1900). John O. EvJNrq.
SOHN, sam, RUDOLF: German Protestant jurist; b. at Restock Oct. 29, 1841. He was edu­cated at the universities of Rostock (LL.D., 1864), Berlin, Heidelberg, and Munich; was privat docent in the faculty of law of the University of G&ttingen (1866 70), and was appointed associate professor in 1870. In the same year be became professor at Freiburg, and from 1872 to 1887 occupied a similar position at Strasburg. Since 1887 he has been pro­fessor of German and canon law in the University of Leipsic. His views upon canonistic theory, though unusual and novel, have gained great signifi­cance in German theological thought. His writings of theological interest are Dab Verhdltnis van Stoat ured Kirche (Tiibingen, 1873); Kirchengeschiehte im Grundriss (Leipsic, 1888, 14th ed., 1905; Eng. tranal. of 8th ed., Outlines of Church History (Lon­don, 1895); Kirchenrecht, vol. i. (1892); Wesen and Ursprung des Katholizismus (1909).