UNITARIANISM. The term Unitarianism in its widest sense includes certain lines of the great religious and theological movement or revolution of the Reformation in the 16th century, when this is regarded as the commencement of the process of the humanization of theology and ethics on the basis of the autonomy of the human mind. In another sense the term stands for a set of theological opinions, more or less variable, and yet in their general drift connected, some of them as old as Christianity, and one section of which only is indicated by the term when used as synonymous with Antitrinitarianism. But there is another meaning of the term, a still narrower one, and to Unitarianism in this sense this article must be confined. We must limit ourselves to a brief account of Unitarianism as it appears in ecclesiastical organizations in separation from the orthodox churches. This treatment of the subject is of course incomplete, and would be misleading were the incompleteness not expressly announced. For a marked feature of the late history of the Unitarian churches is the growing tendency they exhibit of working out to their logical results some of the wider principles of the Reformation to which they ultimately owe their origin, rather than the design of formulating and propagating systems of theology. To not a few modern Unitarian leaders the bond which connects them with a specifically Unitarian organization is the spirit and tendency of the larger movement for which it happens to provide freer play than the orthodox churches, while they repudiate the imputation of belonging to a dogmatic sect. Modern Unitarians have also, both in Europe and America, emphatically and successfully resisted the inclination of some of their number to lay down, though in the most general terms, ...a creed of Unitarianism. Indeed, in opposing this inclination, it might sometimes seem as if the only essential article of Unitarianism were the maintenance of free inquiry in religion,—an impression, however, which a careful study of the history of Unitarian thought would remove. In the same way such a study would show that Unitarian churches are in agreement on many points of doctrine with early and recent theologians of all churches and sects.
This brief sketch of Unitarianism, as it has appeared in organized religious societies, takes us into but a few countries, and covers but a limited space of time. Poland, Transylvania, England, and America are the only countries in which Unitarian congregations have existed in any numbers or for any length of time. Elsewhere, either the law of the land has rendered their existence impossible, or they have been unnecessary in consequence of the substantial adoption by the existing churches of their principles and doctrines. The former was the case in Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and England in the 16th and 17 th centuries, the latter to a certain extent in England in the 18th century, still more in Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries, and in Holland in the present century, as also to a large extent in France in the Reformed Church.
Poland (1565-1658).—The Unitarians, under the names of Arians, Samosatenians, Pinczowians, were formed into a separate church in 1565 by their exclusion as Antitrinitarians from the synods of the Trinitarian Protestants. Very early in the progress of the Reformation in Poland individuals had arrived at heterodox opinions on baptism and the Trinity, very much under the influence of the heterodox Italian refugees in Switzerland, some of whom visited Poland (Lelio Sozzini, 1551 and 1558; Paul Alciati, 1561; G. V. Gentile, 1561; Biandrata, 1555). Gonesius and Gregory Pauli were the first to openly preach Antitrinitarian doctrine. After their separation from the orthodox, the Polish Unitarians developed divergent views as to the nature of Christ, as to the lawfulness of paying divine worship to Him, as to the subjects of baptism (infants or adults), and as to the relation of Christians to the state. On the first point some were Arians and others Humanitarians, while those who claimed divine worship for Christ were called Adorantes and those of the opposite view Nσnadorantes. An epoch in the history of the party was made by the arrival of Fausto Sozzini at Cracow in 1579 (see Socinus). He succeeded in converting the great majority of the churches to his views and in silencing the dissentients. Henceforth the Polish Unitarians adopted the Socinian practice of paying worship to Christ, the Socinian view of the necessity of baptism and of the Christian’s duty towards the state. They rapidly became a numerous and powerful body in Poland, distinguished by the rank of their adherents, the ability and learning of their scholars, the excellence of their schools, and the superiority and wide circulation of their theological literature. Racow, the theological centre of the Socinians, with its school and printing presses, obtained a world-wide fame. It was there that the Racovian Catechism was published (1605 in the Polish language, 1608 in German, and 1609 in Latin). ' But before the death of Fausto Sozzini (1604) the situation of the Unitarians became more difficult, and in 1611 the Jesuits obtained their first open triumph over them. In the rapid course of the Catholic reaction, which was not resisted by the orthodox Protestants as long as the Socinian heretics only suffered, the church and school at Lublin, the most important place next to Racow, were first put down (1627), and Racow, with its church, school, and printing-press suffered the same fate in 1638. The final blow to the whole body followed in 1658, when all adherents of “the Arian and Anabaptist sect” were commanded to quit the kingdom within two years. A few renounced their faith, but the large majority fled into Transylvania, Prussia, Silesia, Holland, and England.
Transylvania (1568-1887).—Next to Poland Transylvania was the most important seat of Unitarianism. It was there the name was first used by the sect as its own designation, and it is there only that the sect has had a continuous existence down to our own time. It is generally considered that the Italian refugee Biandrata was the founder of Transylvanian Unitarianism, but the present representatives of the body claim for it a nobler and domestic origin. Biandrata attended John Sigismund as a physician in 1563, and under his influence Unitarianism made rapid progress. In 1568 its professors, favoured by the king and many magnates,’after separating from the orthodox church, constituted themselves a distinct body under the distinguished man Francis David, who is now regarded as the apostle of true Transylvanian Unitarianism. Their principal centre was Klausenburg (Kolozsvár), w here they had a large church, a college, and a printing-press. But the same conflict between a more radical and a more conservative tendency which appeared amongst the Unitarians of Poland greatly disturbed the churches of Transylvania, particularly with regard to the worship of Christ. On the side of the Adorantes was Biandrata, and on that of the Nonadorantes David. The party of David succumbed to force and fraud, and he himself died in prison a martyr to his convictions. Gradually the Socinian view prevailed, though in 1618 an old order to worship Christ required reinforcement. In the latter half of the 18th century the more logical view of David entirely disappeared. Under the Austrian dynasty the Unitarians were often exposed to great trials, until Joseph IL secured to them their rights and privileges. An official confession of faith of the year 1787 remains, with some modifications, essentially Socinian. But of late years the Transylvanian Unitarians have been in close relation with their co-religionists in England and America, some of the ministers having been educated at Manchester New College, and in consequence their theology is becoming essentially modern. The number of members was 32,000 in 1789, in 1847 40,000, distributed in 104 parishes with 120 pastors. Their present number is 63,539 in 106 parishes. Their chief centres are Kolozsvár, Thorda, and Keresztur, where they have excellent schools.
England (1773-1887).—For two and a half centuries previous to the rise of organized Unitarianism in England, opinions commonly called by this name found numerous individual advocates and some martyrs. John Bidle (1615-62) published catechisms of Unitarian doctrine, translated Socinian works, and publicly discussed and {>reached an English form of Socinianism. But the severity of the aw against Antitrinitarians, coupled with the gradual growth of free opinion in the Established Church and amongst the Presbyterian congregations, made the formation of separate Unitarian churches impossible, and, as was felt, less necessary for another hundred years. The adoption of a completely Humanitarian view of Christ’s person by a few solitary individuals (Lardner 1730, Priestley 1767, Lindsey 1773), assisted by the awakened earnestness of the time, led to their formation. Lindsey resigned a valuable living in Yorkshire, and gathered the first professedly Unitarian church in London. Other clergymen followed his example, and amongst the Presbyterians several ministers, like Joseph Priestley, exchanged their Arian for Humanitarian views. This process went on with deep permanent effects in some of the Dissenting academies. In the year 1791 was formed the Unitarian Book Society for the distribution of literature, and several provincial associations originated about the same time. Ini806 the Unitarian Fund Society was established, with the object of promoting Unitarian Christianity by direct mission work. In 1818 arose another society for protecting the civil rights of Unitarians. These various societies were consolidated in 1825 under the name of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, which has now its headquarters in the building formerly used as Lindsey’s chapel and residence in Essex Street, London. Early in this century nearly the whole of the old Presbyterian congregations, which, unlike those of the Baptists and Independents, had undogmatic trust-deeds, passed through the stages of Arminianism and various forms of Arianism into Socinianism in its peculiar English and mainly Priestleian form. The penal laws against Antitrinitarianism, which had long been obsolete, were repealed in 1813, and in 1844 the right of Unitarians to the chapels which they held in succession from their Presbyterian forefathers was legally secured to them by the Dissenters’ Chapels Act without altering their undogmatic trust-deeds. Though these congregations, popularly known as Unitarian, on principle declined to restrict the progress of thought by imposing on either their ministers or members any dogmatic statements of belief, the generality of them adopted with some modifications the theological system of Priestley, which was a combination of Locke’s philosophy with the crudest rationalistic supernaturalism. With the rise of a more spiritual philosophy in Germany, which bore fruit in England and America before the close of the second decade of the century, the theology of English Unitarianism underwent a radical change, very much in the first instance under the influence of Dr Channing’s writings. Without at all sacrificing its critical and rational bent, a deeper emotional and spiritual element was introduced into it, which gradually, at the cost of some years of internal conflict, dispossessed the purely external and super-naturalistic Socinian and Priestleian legacy. English Unitarian theology was thereby brought into close sympathy with modem scientific theology in Germany and elsewhere. This great and saving transformation was mainly due directly to James Martineau, J. J. Tayler, and J. H. Thom, aided by the writings of Channing and then of Theodore Parker. One consequence of the greater substantial agreement of the present theology of the larger number of the Unitarian churches with the scientific theology of the century is that not a few representatives of these churches disclaim the name Unitarian as one tending to perpetuate divisions which have really no right to continued existence. The main reason for continued separation from the larger liberal churches, whether Established or Dissenting, earnestly urged by many Unitarians of this class, is the use in those churches of theological formularies which modern theology regards as of historic interest only. The number of congregations in England and Wales generally described as Unitarian is about 300, nearly half of which date from between 1662 and 1750, and nearly all of which have undogmatic trust-deeds. Their constitution is purely congregational. For the education of their ministers they have Manchester New College, London (strictly undenominational), the Unitarian Home Missionary Board, Manchester, and Carmarthen College, supported and managed by the Presbyterian Board in London, but practically Independent and Unitarian. The organs of the body are The Inquirer, The Christian Life, The Uni tarian Herald (weeklies), and The Christian Reformer (monthly). In Scotland there are 7 Unitarian congregations and 2 Universalist, the latter being, as in America, Unitarian in doctrine. In Ireland the number is about 40, being nearly all Presbyterian in constitution. They are much stronger in the north than in the south of Ireland. In the north Antitrinitarian views began to spread about 1750; but the first congregation at Dublin traces its Unitarianism back to Thomas Emlyn, who was imprisoned for his Arian opinions in 1702 at the instigation of orthodox Dissenters.
United States (1815-1887).—In the United States Unitarianism had no organized existence previous to 1815, and as in England at the present time the name has always covered great différences of opinion within a common outline of belief or common drift of religious thought. Historical American Unitarianism represents ‘‘ the liberal wing of the Congregational body.” Of the existing 370 churches 120 or more were originally the parish churches founded by the Puritan Congregationalists, which, like the Presbyterian congregations in England, passed gradually from Calvinism through Arminianism to Unitarianism, of which Harvard College became the spiritual centre. In 1812 there was but one church in America professedly Unitarian (that of King’s Chapel, Boston), though the ministers of Boston generally held Unitarian views. In 1815 Belsham’s account of the “State of the Unitarian Churches in America” (in his Life of Lindsey, London, 1812) led to a controversy, the issue of which was the distinct avowal of Unitarian principles on the part of the liberal clergy of New England. Dr Channing came forward as the prophet and champion of American Unitarianism, though the older he grew the more emphatically he repudiated sectarianism in every form. The Congregational body was thereby split into two sections, one of which styled themselves Unitarian Congregationalists. In 1825 the American Unitarian Association was formed, mainly for the diffusion of Unitarian literature and the support of poor congregations. At that time the Unitarian churches numbered about 122. Twenty years later they were some 280, while now they are about 370. The theological colleges of the body are the Divinity School of Harvard University, which is, like Manchester New College, undenominational, and the Theological School of Meadville. As in England so in America the theology of Unitarians has passed through marked changes, which have been attended by conflicts more or less acute. From 1815 to about 1836 a Biblical, semi-rationalistic semi-super-naturalistic theology prevailed, in the heart of which Channing’s elevated ethical ideas were fermenting and slowly preparing a new birth. From 1836 forces such as Biblical criticism, Carlyle and Emerson’s “transcendentalism,” and Theodore Parker’s “absolute religion” opened the era of modern theology, bringing American Unitarianism into living touch with the philosophy and theology of Germany. An effort in 1865 to bring the right and left wings of the body into a closer confederation with a more pronounced profession of Christianity led to the formation of a Free Religious Association on the broad basis of the love of truth and goodness. In the Western States the same controversy as to the basis of religious association has been raging for more than ten years. In May 1886 a resolution was passed by the Western Unitarian Conference by a majority of more than three-fourths adopting a purely ethical and non-theological basis. This led to a split in the body, and the formation of a new Western Association on a distinctly Christian platform. The left wing of American Unitarians show greater sympathy with recent scientific speculation and less fear of pantheistic theories than is the case with English Unitarians. The organs of the body are The Unitarian Review (Boston), The Christian Register (Boston), and The Unitarian (Chicago).
Literature.— On Unitarianism in general, see Fock, Der Sociηiaηisrnus, Kiel, 1847; wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, London, 1850; Unitarianism exhibited in its Actual Condition, edited by J. R. Beard, London, 1846. Οη Socinianism and Unitarianism in Poland and Transylvania: the above works; the historical sketch of Thomas Rees in his translation of the Racoνian Catechism, London, 1818; J. J. Tayler in Theological Review, Jan. 1869; Report of an official Visit to Transylvania, by Alexander Gordon, London, 1879. On Unitarianism in England: wallace’s and Beard's works; J. J. Tayler, A Retrospect of the Religious Life of England, London, 1845, 3d ed., 1876; James Martineau, The Three Stages of Unitarian Theology, London, 1869; Bonet-Maury, Early Sources of English Unitarian Christianity, English trans., London, 1884; Unitarian Christianity, Ten Lectures on the Positive Aspects of Unitarian Thought and Doctrine, with preface by Rev. J. Martineau, D.I)., London, 1881. On Unitarianism in America: Eock; Beard; J. H. Allen, Our Liberal Movement in Theology, 2d ed., Boston, 1883; The Year-Book of the Unitarian Congregational Churches for 1887, Boston, 1886; Count Goblet d’Alviella, The Contemporary Evolution of Religious Thought in England, America, and India, English trans., 1885.
[2,898 words — estimated reading time: 17 minutes]
a comprehensive term, including all who believe the Deity to subsist in one person only. The chief article in the religious system of the Unitarians is, that Christ was a mere man. But they consider him as the great instrument in the hands of God of reversing all the effects of the fall; as the object of all the prophecies from Moses to his own time; as the great bond of union to virtuous and good men, who, as Christians, make one body in a peculiar sense. The Socinian creed was reduced to what Dr. Priestley calls Humanitarianism, by denying the miraculous conception, the infallibility, and the impeccability of the Saviour; and, consequently, his right to any divine honours or religious worship. As to those texts which declare that Jesus Christ “knew no sin,” &c, his followers explain them in the sense in which it is said of believers, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” 1 John iii, 9. Or, if this be not satisfactory, Dr. Priestley refers us to the “Theological Repository,” “in which,” he says, “I think I have shown that the Apostle Paul often reasons inconclusively; and, therefore, that he wrote as any other person of his turn of mind or thinking, and in his situation, would have written, without any particular inspiration. Facts, such as I think I have there alleged, are stubborn things, and all hypotheses must be accommodated to them.” Nor is this sentiment peculiar to Dr. Priestley. Mr. Belsham says, “The Unitarian doctrine is, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties; descended from the family of David, the son of Joseph and Mary, though some indeed still adhere to the popular opinion of the miraculous conception; that ...he was born in low circumstances, having no peculiar advantages of education or learning, but that he was a man of exemplary character; and that, in conformity to ancient prophecy, he was chosen and appointed by God to introduce a new moral dispensation into the world, the design of which was to abolish the Jewish economy, and to place believing Gentiles upon an equal ground of privilege and favour with the posterity of Abraham; in other words, he was authorized to reveal to all mankind, without distinction, the great doctrine of a future life, in which men shall be rewarded according to their works.” Mr. Belsham goes on to state the Unitarian opinion to be, that Jesus was not conscious of his high character till after his baptism; that he afterward spent some time in the wilderness, where he was invested with miraculous powers, and favoured with heavenly visions, like St. Paul, 2 Cor. xii, in which he supposed himself taken up into heaven, and in consequence of which he speaks of his descent from heaven; that he exercised his ministry on earth for the space of a year or more, and then suffered death upon the cross, not to exhibit the evil of sin, or in any sense to make atonement for it, but as a martyr to the truth, and as a necessary preliminary to his resurrection, which they consider as a pledge of the resurrection of mankind. Many also believe that Jesus maintained some personal and sensible connection with the church during the apostolic age, and the continuance of miraculous powers in the church. They farther believe that he is appointed to revisit the earth, and to judge the world,--a difficult task one would suppose, if “he be constituted,” as said above, “in all respects like other men, subject to the same ignorance, prejudices frailties,” &c! So this blasphemous system contains, in this respect, and in almost every other, its own refutation. See SOCINIANS. The creed which the celebrated council of Nice established, says Grier, in his “Epitome of General Councils,” is that which Christians now profess; the errors and impieties which it condemned are those which, according to the refinements of Socinus, his followers of the present day have moulded into their antichristian system. Arius, a presbyter in the church of Alexandria, a man of consummate talent and address, but of a cold and speculative mind, impiously maintained that there had been a time when the Son of God was not; that he was capable of virtue and vice; and that he was a creature, and mutable as creatures are! It is true that Arius held a qualified preëxistence, when he said that God created the Son from nothing before he created the world; in other words, that the Son was the first of created beings; but such preëxistence does not imply coëxistence or coëternity with the Father. After this manner did he deny the divinity of the Son, and his coëternity with the Father. Seduced by the pride of reasoning, no less than by his fondness for novelty, did he likewise reject the ὁμοούσιαν, as it is called, or the tenet of the Son being of the same substance with the Father. The blasphemies of Arius consisted in the denial of Christ’s being either co-eternal or consubstantial with God. After a lapse of twelve centuries, Socinus lowered him another step by declaring his inferiority to the Father; for that he, as well as all other things, was subject to the supreme Creator of the universe; and although he held his mere humanity, yet, inconsistently enough, he would offer him divine worship! Inconsistently it may be said, because the Socinian, on his own principles, thereby incurs the guilt of idolatry as much as the Roman Catholic who worships the Virgin Mary, a mere created being. The Unitarian, or Humanitarian, sinks the character of the Saviour still lower, by withholding all worship from him; and while he considers him as a mere man, and therefore as not possessing the attributes of the Deity, with an inconsistency as singular as that of Socinus, he acknowledges his divinity so as to call him God; as if the terms Deity and Divinity bore different significations, or as if the principle which constituted the essence of the Godhead were separable from the Godhead itself! It should be observed, that the lowest denomination of unbelievers in the descending scale, namely, the modern Unitarian, combines with his own peculiar errors and impieties all the errors and impieties of both Arius and Socinus, together with an absolute denial of the Holy Ghost being a divine Person. Having touched on the shades of difference which exist between the followers of Arius and Socinus, a more minute detail of the division and subdivision of the classes into which they may be ranged may not be unacceptable to the reader: Arians and Semi-Arians constituted the original distinction; that of a subsequent day was high and low Arians. The high Arians entertain the highest views of the mediatorial influence of Christ, and believe in the entire Scriptures; the low Arians run into the opposite extreme, yet neither high nor low Arians consider Christ to be truly God. The old Socinians admitted the miraculous conception, and the worship of the Son; the modern Socinians do not; a circumstance that identifies the modern Socinian with the Unitarian. Some high Arians, such as Dr. Samuel Clarke, &c, thought that Christ might be worshipped; others of them affect to have no distinct notion of what the Holy Ghost meant, and to believe that worship is not to be addressed to Christ, but through Christ! These variations in the Unitarian creed have been deduced from the evidence of Unitarians themselves, given before the Commissioners of Education Inquiry in Ireland in 1826, as detailed in their Report to Parliament; a circumstance that renders them the more valuable, as it imparts to them a living, speaking authority. It must, however, be observed, that motley as they are, they all terminate in one point, the rejection of Christ’s divinity; and that, diversified as the distinctions appear to be, they all will be ultimately found to be without a shadow of difference. In short, Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, &c, not only agree with each other in their antichristian scheme; but can scarcely be said to differ from the infidel Musselmans, who are taught by their Koran to regard Christ as a great prophet, and the forerunner of their own. With Deism doubtless Unitarianism has an intimate alliance. For Deists reject all the doctrines of the Christian revelation, while Unitarians reject all its peculiar doctrines: 1. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. 2. The divinity of Christ. 3. The personality of the Holy Spirit. 4. The miraculous birth of Christ. 5. The atonement of Christ. 6. The sanctification of the Spirit. 7. The existence of angels and spirits; 8. And, therefore, of the devil and his angels. “In what, then,” says the learned Dr. Burgess, bishop of Salisbury, after this enumeration of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, “does Unitarianism differ from Deism? Deists deny the essential doctrines of Christianity by rejecting the whole of the Christian revelation; Unitarians reject the Christian revelation by denying all its peculiar and essential doctrines.”
[1,517 words — estimated reading time: 9 minutes]
