From what I can tell, these theological unitarians believed in direct revelation in a God speaking to man sense; but I also see them as skeptical towards the infallibility of the biblical canon. Hence Adams' lauding their "biblical criticism." They weren't trying to "debunk" the Bible like an atheist or strict deist would. Rather, clarify the proper understanding by removing the errors.
With that, see this post by a traditional conservative Christian entitled Belsham’s Unitarian New Testament (1808) which criticizes what Thomas Belsham did to the Bible. Belsham is one of those Unitarians to whom Adams referred.
A taste:
... Though not yet formulated as an article of faith, reason was even then accepted in practice as the highest tribunal of human appeal.” 9 In a book published in 1798, Belsham indicated his awareness of the incompatibility of the New Testament with Unitarianism by arguing, just as Ellis did later, that not everything in the Bible is inspired, true, and authoritative. “The scriptures,” he wrote, “contain a faithful and credible account of the christian doctrine which is the true word of God: but they are not themselves the word of God, nor do they ever assume that title: and it is highly improper to speak of them as such, as it leads inattentive readers to suppose they were written under a plenary inspiration to which they make no pretension, and as such expressions expose christianity unnecessarily to the cavils of unbelievers.” 10
In line with this critical attitude toward the Bible, we find that the Introduction of the “Improved” version (section 2) refuses to grant the canonicity of some books of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, and the Revelation), and its editors even deny that there can be a final and authoritative determination of the limits of the canon. ...
7 comments:
The British Unitarians were a different breed than the ones over here, who were far less theologically radical [at least around the Founding era].
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-were-unitarians.html
John Adams is lauding the British Unitarians.
Aye. Just noting that British unitarianism doesn't bear much on America's religious history.
In fact, John Adams visited every church in Philadelphia except Priestley's unitarian operation [although I'm not quite sure why].
Jon and Tom – I’ve recommended the scholarship of J.D. Bowers on the origins of Unitarianism in America before via his book (Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America) or seven-page web article (From Consensus to Conflict to Contact: A Reappraisal of the Early History of American Unitarianism at http://www.uuhhs.org/resources/talks/From_Consensus_to_Conflict.htm).
Unitarianism in American did not emerge originally or exclusively from the liberal Congregationalism of New England. Bowers bases his thesis on “the reality of transatlantic connections, patterns of American religious development and denominational growth, and moments of contact when the Unitarian landscape in America included the English Socinian theology of Joseph Priestley and inherited English Unitarian practices.”
He goes on to establish that, “Given that the period between the 1780s and 1819 was one in which the struggles over Unitarian identity were fluid, it is easy to see why Priestley and the Socinians were granted the public identity as America s first Unitarians. It was not a comfortable identity and one that they would not hold onto in the following decades. But for a time it was clearly theirs. The two groups, for one cannot call them wings of the same faith as both did not agree on their fellowship, clearly occupied similar space within the religious landscape. They shared ideas, approaches, and even a name, but they did not share a path to their common vision for themselves or humanity. They were at one both similar and different, both Unitarians but not theologically aligned. What Priestley left undone, Channing accomplished as he institutionalized and formalized the structures of the beliefs into a denomination that was better able to engage the breadth of the nation’s emerging religious dynamics. But that should not and does not negate that it was Priestley and his followers who initially stepped forward, clearly announced their beliefs, and earned the appellation of Unitarian within America.”
Jon, Bowers also mentions Belsham: “Enter Belsham and the English Unitarians. It was Belsham who denounced Channing and who maintained that it was his attempts to deny association between English and American Unitarianism that were the most destructive. Arians were polytheistic, he noted, and were oblivious to the consequences of their own positions. Unitarianism, had it been allowed to follow Priestley s theology, would have fared far better in the American religious landscape since Socinianism was not a theological hypocrisy. Arians were not, simply put, Unitarian.”
Bowers concludes that, “Priestleyan Unitarianism once again needs to come into the historical picture of Unitarianism’s American past. The denomination has never been and never will be completely New England in its orientation; predominantly, yes, completely, no. This crack in the veneer is far from trivial or insignificant; rather it is one that exposes a whole new set of questions, new lines of analysis, and recaptures an essential element of Unitarian identity, practice, and influence.”
Thx for this, JMS!
I'm still left with the impression that Priestley's unitarianism [and on the whole the British version] was more an intellectual fad than an actual religious movement.
Jon's recent post on David Ricardo's flirtation with it furthered that impression: Ricardo was raised a Sephardic Jew. He was never very Jewish and never became very Christian either.
By contrast, American unitarianism seemed to be more a "liberalizing" theology from orthodoxy--perhaps not so surprisingly from the least liberal theology, Calvinism.
“Priestleyan Unitarianism once again needs to come into the historical picture of Unitarianism’s American past."
I have reservations about this way of doing history. To me, "history" must have some major influence on the narrative of history, how we got to where we are today. "Unitarianism" as a whole of course has some significance [mebbe even a lot], but Priestley's in particular perhaps not.
"I have reservations about this way of doing history. To me, "history" must have some major influence on the narrative of history, how we got to where we are today. "Unitarianism" as a whole of course has some significance [mebbe even a lot], but Priestley's in particular perhaps not."
The inherent problem with this, it seems, is that it is less an endeavor to record history than to construct a political narrative.
Is it possible to study history in this fashion and keep an objective and open mind for disconfirmation and well as confirmation? Possibly, but I doubt it. And even if someone were capable, no one would be able to recognize it as such.
I also suspect that this approach causes us to ignore whole swaths of minor events, persons, cultural movements, fads and fashions that moved us faster and further in directions that we might not immediately recognize from such a distance with but a dismissive glance.
Of course, I could be wring and ymmv.
I also suspect that this approach causes us to ignore whole swaths of minor events, persons, cultural movements, fads and fashions that moved us faster and further in directions that we might not immediately recognize from such a distance with but a dismissive glance.
Then you're not doing history.
What I'm saying is there are a lot of dead ends that are best described as footnotes to the main text.
For instance, the content of Unitarianism isn't particularly significant, only its existence as a counterpoint to orthodoxy.
Post a Comment