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.”
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.”