476

as equivalent to Unitarian. The conusion of terms may be accounted for on the same principle in this case as in the former. It arose from the want of correct discrimination, by which all persons, denying the Trinitarian faith, were called either Unitarians, Arians or Socinians, merely because it was known that there was a general similarity of sentiment among them.

Although the people at large, and perhaps some of the orthodox writers, confounded together the generic and the specific names, using them all with an equal latitude, yet the Unitarian authors, whether Arians or Socinians, appear to have preserved the distinction with perfect accuracy. I extract from their writings the following passages as examples to prove that the term Unitarian was then universally applied and understood in its extensive

sense.

1. Sandius (Bibl. p. 52) gives the following account of one of the leaders of the Arians.

STANISLAUS FAR NOVIUS, OF FARNESIUS, a Pole. About the year 1568 he separated from the other Unitarians." He held the same opinion with Gonesius concerning the person of Christ, whose pre-existence he warmly defended agreeably to the doctrine of Arius, and on this account made the above-mentioned separation." "Farnesius practised the baptism of adults by immersion in the same manner as the other Unitarians." "After his death his followers joined those other Unitarians, who held the opinions of Soeinus."

2. Wissowatius (Brief History of the Separation of the Unitarian Christians in Poland from the Reformed Trinitarians, p. 209) relates, that John Sigismund," having held a conference during ten days at Alba Julia, in his principality of Transylvania, upon the principles of religion, and especially the doctrine of a Tri-une God, approved of the opinion of those, who confess that God is in person as well as essence ONE, that the Father alone is God, and that his only Son was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary; who on this account are there called UNITARIANS; and rejoice in their religious liberty, confirmed by that prince."

3. The anonymous author of the "Epistle, giving an account of Wissowatius and of the Unitarian churches

in his time" (p. 225), after stating that the members of those churches were commonly, though improperly called Arians and Anabaptists, and that they themselves wished to be called simply Christians, relates, that, "for the sake of distinction from those who chose to be named after the Trinity, they have assumed the appellation of UNITARIANS: because, abiding by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Apostles' Creed, and of the Primitive Church, and abhorring the idea of any sort of division or multitude in the Deity, they acknowledge simply ONE SUPREME BEING, who is one in person as well as in essence, the Only True God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and who alone is the Father."

4. The author of "the Acts of the great Athanasius" (Unit. Tracts, vol. i. p. 6) applies the name Unitarian to Eusebius of Cesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Constantine the Great, and Constantius; by which the writer could only mean, that they were believers in the simple unity of God as one person.

5. The author of the "Brief History of the Unitarians" (Unit. Tracts, vol. i. p. 11, 12) uses these words:

"D. Petavius, the most learned of the Jesuits, has granted, that the Fathers (generally,) who lived before the Nicene Council, and whose writings are preserved, agreed in their doctrine concerning God with the UNITARIANS, that is, the Nazarenes or Photinians, (now called Socinians,) and the Arians. and concerning the Son our Lord Christ and the Holy Spirit with the Arians. For 'tis to be noted that the Arians and Socinians agree in their doctrine concerning God; they both say, that he is only one person, even the God and Father of our Lord Christ; but they differ concerning the Son and Holy Spirit." After describing this difference, the author adds, that because they agree in the principal ́article, that there is but one Person who is God, "both parties, Socinians and Arians, are called Unitarians, and esteem of one another as Christians and true believers."

6. Mr. Emlyn, who to his death maintained the pre-existence of Christ and his subordinate agency in creating the world, always speaks of himself as a Unitarian. In almost every page of his writings we find the appellation employed in its extensive sense, and in

one place (Tracts, vol i p. 286) he expressly says, "The Unitarians are some of them Arians, and some Socinians, in their judgment concerning Jesus Christ."

7. Lastly, Mr. Cardale, though he maintains the simple humanity of Christ, includes under the appellation in question even those who doubted or denied that our Saviour was a crea ture, if only they admitted the supremacy of the Father. Arguing (True Doctrine, p. 110) that, if Christ was uncreated, he must have been selfexistent. "It appears," says he, "very strange to me, that so many learned men among the Unitarians should give into an opinion so inconsistent with their own avowed principles, and which does in effect entirely subvert the doctrine of the unity. But this indeed is the best and only resource they have, or can have, so long as they hold with the notion of pre-existence." The first author who used the term Unitarian in its restricted sense, was, I believe, Dr. Lardner. In a few instances we find him employing it in contradistinction not only to the Trinitarian, but also to the Arian faith; a misapplication which we should not have expected from a mau of his caution and accuracy. In this innovation he was followed by Dr. Priestley and other eminent writers, who have called their system the proper Unitarian doctrine, and who have given currency to the limited application of the name, but, so far as I can judge, with considerable detriment to the progress of truth. The word has however happily returned to its original acceptation; for,

II. As a second reason, it may be stated, that the designation we are considering is Now generally understood to apply to all Christians who, in opposition to the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity, assert that the Father is the Only True God.

All the present Arians lay claim to the appellation of Unitarians. I wish I could add, that all the present Socinians admit their claim. I conceive, however, the exceptions are but few. The great majority of those Christians, who believe the simple humanity of Christ to be the doctrine of the Scrip tures, wish to include their Arian brethren under the same denomination with themselves. So far as I can learn from. private conversation with the

Unitarians of my acquaintance, either in England or Scotland, they generally agree in understanding the term under consideration as equally applicable to all who worship the Father as the Only True God, and bear their testimony against the established doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead.

The same definition of the term is given by nearly all those who have lately been called upon in the course of Providence to appear before the public as the advocates of the Divine Unity. It is given by Dr. Carpenter, in his controversy with the Devonshire clergy; by Mr. Asplund, in his Plea for Unitarianism in answer to Norris; by Mr. Grundy, in his Sermon at the Opening of a Unitarian Chapel in Li verpool; and by the venerable Dr. Toulmin, in his Sermon before the Western Unitarian Society.

Perhaps a still more decisive indication of the sense in which the term is understood by the great body of Uni tarians now living, is the constitution of the various Societies established by them for the propagation of their principles. One of the fundamental objects of the Scotch Unitarian Association, as expressed in the Rules, is "to promote and keep up an intercourse and correspondence between the dif ferent societies, which are united upon the common principles of the strict unity of God, and of his universal love to his creatures." Although the London Unitarian Society is avowedly opposed not only to the Athanasian, but also to the Arian doctrine, the other institutions in this kingdom of a similar nature are, I believe, framed upon the supposition, that all Christians are Unitarians, who hold the Unity of God as one Person..

III. A third reason for the general application of the title Unitarian is, that such an application is required by the plain meaning and known de rivation of the term.

As the Christians of one class are called Trinitarians, because they believe that there are three Persons in the Godhead, those of the other class are properly called Unitarians, because they believe that there is only one. Understanding the terms in these acceptations, we perceive a contrast and a correspondence between them, answering to the etymology of each. The name Unitarian, thus applied, is

478

expressive and appropriate, naturally leading the mind from the sound to the sense. But, if applied exclusively to those who maintain the simple humanity of Christ, the title is not characteristic or distinctive; it comprises within itself no indication of its meaning.

IV. Lastly, The extensive application of the title in question may be recommended as likely to be attended with manifold advantages in the promotion of Christian truth and Christian piety.

The meaning of the term being thus fixed, the Unitarian controversy is reduced to a narrow compass. On the one side, the Athanasian brings, to support the doctrine of three co-equal Persous in the Godhead, a list of texts, which, few as they are, seem for the most part to have no relation to the subject, except that in some view or other we may count three in them; and, to prove the Supreme Divinity of Christ, he produces a number of passages, which either state nothing more than the sentiments held by Unitarians, in common with all other Christians, concerning the power and knowledge of Jesus, or, if they seem at first sight to oppose the Unitarian doctrine, may be easily proved to be either interpolated, wrongly translated, or misunderstood. On the other side, the Unitarian states, in the plain and simple language of Holy Writ, and supports by many hundreds of explicit Scripture testimonies, his distinguish ing principles, that the Father is the Only True God, that the Father is greater than the Son, and that all the power of the Son is given to him. The controversy being placed upon these grounds, the evidence in support of the Unitarian doctrine is so copious, so overwhelming, that no serious in quirer, with a mind tolerably free from prejudice and from the bias of worldly interest, can refuse to embrace it. Having adopted these general principles, he may proceed to the calm, attentive and impartial discussion of the various questions, upon which Unitarians are divided in opinion among themselves. But if, by the definition which we give of the name Unitarian, we require all persons in joining us to disavow the peculiarities of Arianism, we either lead them to be precipitate in professing faith in our system before they have sufficiently studied

its grounds, or we keep them at a distance from us during a long, and perhaps painful course of scriptural investigation. The believers in the simple humanity of Christ, while they are confident that a process of diligent and unbiassed inquiry, once begun, will almost certainly terminate in the adoption of their sentiments, must admit that the explanation of some texts, alleged to prove the pre-existence of Christ, is attended with considerable difficulty. Socinians themselves are not agreed respecting the proper interpretation of them. Why should they force a hasty solution of these difficulties upon the serious and humbleminded Christian? Let them also reflect how much detriment is brought to the great evangelical principles of the Unity and universal Benevolence of God, when the Athanasians, completely baffled in all their attempts to vindicate the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, still conti nue to amuse themselves and their readers with a ceaseless round of ridicule and argument upon the Socinian interpretations of the passages adduced by the Arian brethren.

Mr. Belsham, in his Sermon preached at the Opening of the New Meeting in Birmingham, has admirably illustrated the great principle, on which Unitarians separate from the Established Church and from other bodies of Dissenters, and which is no trifling difference respecting forms of service or modes of discipline, or even respecting minor points of doctrine, but a radical and fundamental opposition of opinion concerning the object of worship. The principal purpose for which Christians meet in their reli gious assemblies, is to unite in the worship of the Deity. It is therefore absolutely requisite, that they should be agreed respecting the Person, or Persons, to whom they address their adoration. Hence the Unitarians, if they offer public praise and prayer at all, are under an evident necessity of doing it in distinct societies. They feel themselves further justified in their schism by the opportunities afforded them for the exercise of their natural and Christian liberty in the pursuit of religious truth; by the train of the exhortations addressed to them from the pulpit, which place upon a dif ferent ground the prospects of their eternal salvation and the means of

their acceptance with God; and by the sacred obligation imposed upon them of lifting up their voices, together with their hearts, against doctrines unhappily prevalent in the Christian world, but in the highest degree derogatory from the glory of the Almighty Father and from the efficacy of the everlasting Gospel. In order to maintain these commanding distinctions of religious principle, the formation of all the worshipers of the One True God, the Father, into a separate body, together with the use of a particular name to designate them, is a matter of distressing, but unavoidable necessity. But is there any occasion for a separation among these who agree in asserting these fundamental principles? I cannot see that such a separation is either reasonable, or warrantable: and I think that any division of their strength, or alienation of their affections, ought to be most religiously avoided. They are agreed as to the object of worship; they are agreed upon the right of individual judgment and the duty of free inquiry; they are agreed that God does not de mand an infinite equivalent, or satis faction, before he pardons any of the sins of his creatures; in short, they are agreed upon every subject of very ma. terial cousequence. A minister, either Arian or Socinian, has not often occasion to introduce into his discourses expressions or sentiments to which any Unitarian can object. When he proposes his peculiar interpretations of Scripture, it is universally understood, that each of his hearers is at full liberty either to adopt or to reject them, according to his own judgment. Instead of regretting that ther short he varieties of opinion among Unitari be ans, I think it is rather a beauty and an advantage in the constitution of their societies, that, while united upon all topics of much importance, they have still some subjects left to enliven their curiosity, to exercise their under standings, and to gratify their devo tional taste with fresh views and ever new discoveries.

into two different sects by the use of specific appellations, the terms Arian and Socinian are now clearly understood, and have been in common use during the last two hundred years: and, although persons of the latter description have objected to the denonomination bestowed upon them, their objections appear to me groundless; for as, when we call our orthodox brethren Calvinists, we never mean to insinuate, that they make Calvin their master instead of Christ, or that they approve of the murder of Servetus, so we need not fear that, by allowing ourselves to be called Socinians, we shall be charged with looking up to Socinus as our spiritual guide, or with adopting the sentiments favourable to persecution, which have been extracted from his letters.

Had not my paper already grown to such an exorbitant size, I should have added a few words to express my most cordial approbation of the plan, which has been more than once suggested in the Monthly Repository, for combining the efforts of all the English Unifarians by means of an Association similar to that which is established in Scotland, and which, though necessarily upon a small scale, has already been productive of much good. But I must conclude with wishing increased success to your valuable Miscellany, and to the great cause of free inquiry and evangelical truth, to which it is devoted.to abband Tuam deiugniaib sid

sd a todo o t

silt 000, SUIT NO Mr. Aspland, in Reply to Pastor, on the

Term Unitarian.

480

instead of Unitarian, upon which the author of the Plea observes, as follows:

"Your use of the term 'Socinian,' with your explanation of your meaning, indicates, I fear, that your design towards us is less to instruct and convince, than to reproach and irritate.

"Unitarian is, as you observe, our 'favourite designation;' and we approve the name, because it is purely and justly descriptive of our faith. Your objection to it betrays your unacquainteduess with its history and its import.

"Unitarian is not opposed to Tritheist or Polytheist; it does not denote a believer in One God as contra-distinguished from a believer in Three Gods, or more Gods than one: it is opposed to Trinitarian-Triuni-tarian-only, and signifies a believer in, and a worshiper of, One God in One Person, as contra-distinguished from a believer in, and a worshiper of, One God in

Three Persons.

"This author needed not to have made the definition of Unitarian negative. We deny, it is true, but we deny by affirming ; we affirm that the One God is one Person. You assert, you contend,' you strenuously contend,' that there are three Persons in the One God; you are therefore rightly denominated Trinitarians: we, who assert, and, in apostolic phrase, earnestly contend,' for the oneness of the Divine Person,

which we take to be the faith which was

once delivered to the saints,' are truly and properly named Unitarians.

The sense here given to the term is allowed by one of our opponents, not blameable for an excess of candour, Dr. Berriman. But such,' he says, had been the arts of Socinus to engage and persuade, such his command of temper and appearance of modesty, and such withal his studious application to polish more and more the scheme he had advanced, and to oppose the several sorts of errors that appeared against it, that in the end the various sects of Anti-trinitarians had combined in one,

* P. 204. Note.

+ I quote the 11th ed. Sro. 1745. Jude, v. 3. Historical Account of Controversy on the Trinity, in Eight Sermons, at Lady Moyer's Lecture. 8vo. 1725. p. 410.

which from him have been usually denominated the Socinians, though their own writers chose rather to distinguish themselves by the name of Unitarians, to import their assertion of the numerical unity in such a sense, as excludes all plurality of Persons in the Godhead as well as es

sences.'

"There may have been a misapprehension of the meaning of the term Unitarian, occasioned or countenanced by such writers as yourself, amongst Unitarians as well as others; but the misapprehension has never been general. No intelligent member of our denomination thinks to distinguish himself from polytheists or idolaters, by calling himself an Unitarian. If any one amongst us have used the term invidiously and reproachfully, we claim the right of disowning his sense of the word.

"But even if any of us had fallen into your error of considering the terms Unitarian and Tritheist, as fairly and directly opposed to each other, we might reasona bly have been forgiven, on the consideration, that some Trinitarians have been Tritheists. You are well acquainted, Sir, with the controversy between Sherlock and South, two of your greatest Divines, on the subject of the Trinity, in the year 1698; the former maintaining the existence of three eternal minds, the latter conteuding for three personal subsistences, modes, respects, relations, or somewhats, in the divine essence. Sherlock was censured for Tritheism, South for Sabellianism. § The University of Oxford declared for South, and against Sherlock.

The great increase and boldness of this heresy' (Socinianism,") gave occasion to a celebrated divine of our church, to write his Vindication of the Doctrine of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity: who, by some terms he made use of in the explication of that great mystery, gave but too plausible a colour, (in the judgment of some persons) for the charge of Tritheism;

which became the foundation of a most unhappy controversy, and provoked another great divine of our church to enter the lists with him, and propose a different scheme, which, however it made use of the Catholic expressions, was nevertheless charged with Sabellianism. Great was the advantage which our Socinian adversaries made by this contention.' Berriman, Hist. Ac. p. 426, 427.

" He,' Dr. Sherlock, thought there were three eternal minds; two of these issuing from the Father, but that these were one, by reason of a mutual consciousness in the three to every of their thoughts, this was looked on as plain tritheism.''He' (Dr. South) explained the Trinity in the common method, that the Deity was one essence in three subsistencies: Sherlock replied, and charged this us Sabel