Wednesday, June 19, 2019

The Unitarians of America's Founding

Much has been written here about the "unitarians" of the Founding era. John Adams averred he was one, as did Abigail Adams. But were they Christians?

Well, they certainly considered themselves Christians, and protested quite vociferously when accused of not being Christians, usually by competing "orthodox" Protestant clergy.

It all came to a head around 1815, when William Ellery Channing---generally regarded then as now as exemplary of that era's unitarianism---answered some prevailing charges against unitarianism in his famous pamphlet





A Letter to the Rev. Samuel C. Thacher on the Aspersions Contained in a Late Number of the Panoplist, on the Ministers of Boston and the Vicinity
.

Now, perhaps the defining feature of unitarianism was that it didn't believe in the Trinity---as John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, 1 + 1 + 1 would equal Three, not One. Hence the term "unitarian."

There were other orthodox doctrines rejected, too, namely, as Channing wrote:

"I fear, that the Author of the Lord's prayer will, according to this rule, be driven as a heretick from the very church which he has purchased with his own blood. In that well known prayer I can discover no reference to the "inspiration of the holy scriptures, to the supreme divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost, to the atonement and intercession of Jesus Christ, to the native and total depravity of the unregenerate, and to the reality and necessity of special divine grace to renew and sanctify the souls of men;" and these, let it be remembered, are _five_ out of the _six_ articles which are given by the Reviewer as fundamental articles of a christian's faith."


So that's what they didn't believe. So what did they believe? Channing wrote:


"The word UNITARIANISM, as denoting this opposition to Trinitarianism, undoubtedly expresses the character of a considerable part of the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the commonwealth...We both agreed in our late conference, that a majority of our brethren believe, that Jesus Christ is more than man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment of our brethren." 


Is that Christian enough? Certainly not to the orthodox clergy and various laymen of the time who stood in opposition to them.

Probably not Christian enough for most Christian theologians of any stripe today, certainly not evangelical or orthodox. But perhaps Christian enough for the sociologist or the historian. 

Jesus Christ is:


  • more than man
  • who existed before the world ["Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am"---John 5:58]
  • literally came from heaven 
  • to save our race [the Redeemer, the Messiah]
  • more than just a "teacher"
  • still acts for our benefit and is our intercessor with the Father


"Unitarian Christian" is my own preference, both descriptively and definitively, at least for our best understanding in our day and age. [Channing and others used "'rational' Christians," but in our day, I'm not sure that's helpful or descriptive enough, although it's certainly a proper term. Channing himself published a popular tract in 1819 called Unitarian Christianity.]

Do read Channing's letter for yourself, as there's more than can be sketched or excerpted here. It offers an excellent window into what is called the Unitarian Controversy today, and clearly outlines the issues and the players, a clarity require to consider these "unitarians" properly in the scheme of things. The unitarians cannot be plunked under an umbrella term like "theistic rationalist" along with outliers such as Thomas Jefferson without a great loss of precision and clarity.

20 comments:

Jonathan Rowe said...

This is the Arian version which was the more popular version in contradistinction to Socinianism which teaches Jesus 100 man, not divine at all in His nature, but a Savior on a divine mission nonetheless as the most perfect man ever to exist. Socinians existed as well during the American founding era.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Can you name any Socinians? I'm having trouble identifying any actual unitarians among the founders outside John Adams, and he kept it secret.

We talk about unitarianism around here mostly because of your many posts about it, Jon. You really do need to pony up some names.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Okay. Jefferson called himself a unitarian. He arguably was a modified Socinian. Franklin sounds like a unitarian and supported them. John Marshall was a unitarian until the end of his life. I'm not sure by the way whether Adams was Arian or Socinian, or that he knew which one he was. He just knew he was unitarian, denying the Trinity.

Jonathan Rowe said...

For Socinian divines you have Joseph Priestley and William Bentley. That's just off the top of my mind.

http://uudb.org/articles/williambentley.html

Jonathan Rowe said...

Let me note, I concede that Arianism was the more popular form of unitarianism during America's founding era. But, as I mentioned with Adams above, often it can be hard to tell whether someone was an Arian or Socinian. From John Marshall's daughter:

"The reason why he never communed was, that he was a Unitarian in opinion, though he never joined their society. He told her he believed in the truth of the Christian Revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ; therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church."

Marshall: Arian or Socinian?

George Ticknor on James Madison:

"I found the President more free and open than I expected, starting subjects of conversation and making remarks that sometimes savored of humor and levity. He sometimes laughed, and I was glad to hear it ; but his face was always grave. He talked of religious sects and parties, and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.— TICKNOR, GEORGE, 1815, Letter to his Father, Jan. 21 ; Life, Letters and Journals, vol. I, p. 30."

If Madison really did have such "regard" for the "unitarian doctrines," which were they? Arian or Socinian?

To that I don't have an answer.

Likewise when Ben Franklin "doubts" Jesus' divinity, what exactly is he doubting and which unitarian box would that place him in?

Ditto on not having the answer.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Without any definitive proof, "Socinian" seems to be a red herring that sheds no clarity. The New England unitarians are easily identifiable. Socinianism, with its "Rakovian Catechism," was a small movement in Europe. None of the Founders belonged. The word was thrown around casually as a general term for heterodoxy, but without clarity.

The very purpose of this post was to provide much needed clarity, so throwing terms like "Socianian" around without concrete examples just muddies the water.

And Jefferson calling himself a "unitarian" means nothing. By his own admission, he was "a sect unto myself" and his noodlings on theology are amateurish and idiosyncratic.

A key point is that Jesus existed before the creation of man, a giant metaphysical leap from anyone who claimed he was just a prophet, teacher, or even a human Messiah.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

The unitarians accepted this much. Believing the Bible is a hallmark of a Christian. Eventually the unitarians abandoned this sine qua non, so much so that it becomes fair to label them non-Christian. But this happens much later.

Jonathan Rowe said...

The Anglo-American Socinians were more likely to follow Joseph Priestley than the "Rakovian Catechism." I think we covered this article before. Perhaps it's time we do it again.

https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/anti-trinitarianism-and-republican-tradition-enlightenment-britain

Tom Van Dyke said...

https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/anti-trinitarianism-and-republican-tradition-enlightenment-britain

Nothing in this article strictly addressing Socinianism except this footnote, which reinforces my objection to "Socinian" as imprecise and thus unhelpful.

Although Stephen Nye used the word “Unitarian” in 1689, what the word would come to mean for most denominational Unitarians who applied it to themselves after the 1770s was typically covered in the midcentury by the abusive terms “Arian” and “Socinian.” “Arian” was applied to those who believed Jesus had some sort of divine status even though it was not as great as God’s. “Socinian” tended to be applied to anyone who reasoned Jesus was merely human. The precise meaning of these terms is never fixed in early modernity.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I don't quite get your objection. Not all of the unitarians were Arians. Some were Socinians. Richard Price was an Arian. Joseph Priestley was a Socinian.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Priestley was British and had little following in the US. His theology was a curiosity, not a movement.

"Socinian" is a vague term, and once you reduce Jesus to not being the Christ, you're not really a Christian anymore.

Our Founding Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Our Founding Truth said...


"I found the President more free and open than I expected, starting subjects of conversation and making remarks that sometimes savored of humor and levity. He sometimes laughed, and I was glad to hear it ; but his face was always grave. He talked of religious sects and parties, and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.— TICKNOR, GEORGE, 1815, Letter to his Father, Jan. 21 ; Life, Letters and Journals, vol. I, p. 30."""""

If you read this carefully, it doesn't seem legit and shouldn't be evidence at all because the author doesn't quote or provide distinct facts; only his opinion, which is probably incorrect. The author doesn't give an answer about those Episcopalians receiving the Athanasian creed. Maybe they did receive the creed. Who knows? The author doesn't say or quote what JM said. Why did he use "well received" instead of just "received"

"Pretty distinctly"

This quote is probably spurious. It wouldn't hold up in court either.

I'm not defending JM as a Christian or not. However, he was a lousy administrator, a poor judge of character, an immature Christian, if he was one, a disgrace for helping destroy the country at the start and clearly a jerk for what he did to George Washington, by being an accomplice in hiring his loser buddy Phillip freneau to print falsehoods against GW in order to destroy him; all while he's supposed to be his friend.

Some friend and Christian.

Hell, he wasn't even clear on the realm of taxation, the courts, etc. and look at the IRS.

Tom Van Dyke said...

the IRS was established in 1862 to pay for the Civil War

personal income tax [the 16th Amendment] was ratified in 1913

Our Founding Truth said...


personal income tax [the 16th Amendment] was ratified in 1913"""


Had they been clear on it, it would have never happened, late at night as well






Jonathan Rowe said...

"The author doesn't give an answer about those Episcopalians receiving the Athanasian creed. Maybe they did receive the creed."

OFT: "Received" here means HOW these Episcopalians understood this creed which IS PART OF OFFICIAL ANGLICAN-EPISCOPALIAN DOCTRINE and whether they accepted it or wanted to change or get rid of it.

This is what "reformation" is all about: You can change your churches "doctrines" if you think something is wrong in the mix.

Our Founding Truth said...

OFT: "Received" here means HOW these Episcopalians understood this creed which IS PART OF OFFICIAL ANGLICAN-EPISCOPALIAN DOCTRINE and whether they accepted it or wanted to change or get rid of it.

This is what "reformation" is all about: You can change your churches "doctrines" if you think something is wrong in the mix."""

I'm still waiting for an answer. The author of the quote doesn't give an answer





Tom Van Dyke said...

The Athanasian Creed is in the Book of Common Prayer. Shame on you both. :-D

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/creed-s-athanasius

Jonathan Rowe said...

Yes Tom and I'm going to do a post on Anglican reformation in America. I mentioned to a smart Catholic blogger that America rebelled against "high church Anglicanism." He didn't get it.

Part of the liturgy in Anglicanism required accepting that the King was head of church and state and was to be obeyed. America rebelled against that. And we had a lot of Anglicans (soon to be Episcopalians) who were Whigs engaging in the rebellion.

The liturgy had to be changed, by necessity. Kings Chapel New England used that as an opportunity to go Unitarian. It was an opportunity to "reform."

martins flora said...

INSTEAD OF GETTING A LOAN,, I GOT SOMETHING NEW
Get $5,500 USD every day, for six months!

See how it works
Do you know you can hack into any ATM machine with a hacked ATM card??
Make up you mind before applying, straight deal...

Order for a blank ATM card now and get millions within a week!: contact us
via email address:(automatictellermechine01@gmail.com)


We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be use to hack ATM
machines, the ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, at
stores and POS. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested
buyers worldwide, the card has a daily withdrawal limit of $5,500 on ATM
and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores depending on the kind of card
you order for:: and also if you are in need of any other cyber hack
services, we are here for you anytime any day.

Here is our price lists for the ATM CARDS:

Cards that withdraw $5,500 per day costs $200 USD
Cards that withdraw $10,000 per day costs $850 USD
Cards that withdraw $35,000 per day costs $2,200 USD
Cards that withdraw $50,000 per day costs $5,500 USD
Cards that withdraw $100,000 per day costs $8,500 USD

make up your mind before applying, straight deal!!!

The price include shipping fees and charges, order now: contact us via
email address:: (automatictellermechine01@gmail.com

Brian Tubbs said...

Great article and interesting discussion (except for the spam comment about loans :-( )