On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
sense , that it comprehends Arians , Socinians , and the present ¥ ace of persons deu \ 7 iug the Trinity , who for the most pai t are neither Socinians nor Arians . N " ow , I cannot at the same
time , maintain *» the right of Arians , for instance , U " > the appellation , and explain it to siy uify my own opinions on the very poii ^ on which I differ from Arians . I use it as I do the terms Christian < ind Protestant , and am the better pleas ed with it because
like those terms it e xpresses a principle on which lam in a state of * agreement' with a respectable portion of my fellow-creatures . This , however , displeases Pastor—he represents me as
spending my life in opposition , and will not allow me to take a name which , relatively to my Christian brethren , is significant of union .. A professedly moderate man might bave forgiven me this wrong .
Pastor unexpectedly , and I thinfc unadvisedly , asserts , that the term Unitarian has not " the most distant allusion to our peculiar faith , or to that which distinguishes us from all other Christians : " to which I think
it necessary to reply only by asserting that in my judgment the term refers entirely and solely to our peculiar faith , or that which distinguishes us from others ; which peculiar , distinguishing faith 1 hold to be , that " there is but one God and one object of
religious worship , and that this one God is the Father only , and not a trinity , consisting of Father , Son and Holy Ghost , "—the belief which , according to Dr . Price , whom I here quote , constitutes a Unitarian .
In this sense of the term Unitarian it does not , in my use of it , distinguish me from an Arian , nor am I careful concerning the distinction , as long as the Arian has , like Dr . Price , only one proper object of worship , namely the Father . If the Arian , conceiving
our difference to be * momentous , ' wish to distinguish himself from me , he is welcome to set up what distinction he pleases , only let that distinction mark his opinions and not mine .
If it be objected that the appellation Unitarian is commonly understood to signify rather those that are called Socinians than those that are called Arians , I answer , that this ac-< jeptation of the term is accidental , and may be easily explained . During the last fifty years , the most zealous
Untitled Article
opposers of the doctrine of the Trin ' ty have b een also opposers of A ria * " ism , and the Arians have made fe * r or no effc * rts either to defend them selves or 1 o aid the exertions of their brethren on behalf of the unity of God . Is it wonderful that the puW seeing the ; ir indifference to the < W
trine of tl ie divine unity should have almost foi gotten that they are Unitarians , anc 1 should have esteemed them alone Un itarians who , in the assertion and profession of the unity , have encou u tei ed reproach and exposed thernselvt s to persecution ? The best way to p revent the appellation from becoming ; synonimous with Socinian is for tta e Arians to avow and proclaim the ir belief of the Divine Unity and their anxiety for its practical
observance in religious worship . But whatever may be their measures aa a body or i is individuals , I shall never deny ther n the honourable name by which I i ny self am called , nor use it in a sense : which they disown . Beyond wt lat the term Unitarian etymological ly signifies , as before explained i n the words of Dr . Price , I attach : no meaning to it : my adoption of it , however , as a distinction , shews m ; y opinion of the importance of the re ] igious doctrine to which itrefers , as tc » which I trust that the Ai-ian * will not suffer any other sect of Unitarians t o be peculiar .
rasto ? r has another startling assertion , vi z . " that the difference between t , hose that are called Socinians and Sor : inus , is far less than that which subsists between them and
most o ther Unitarians . " Now the differen ce bstween Socinus and the misnano . ed Socinians of the present day rel ates to the object of worship ; he mail itaining the duty of worshiping Jesus , a creature , a human being , and chargii ig thedeniers of the duty with being blasphemers , worthy of civil punishi nent — they contending that God , t he Father of Christ , is the only proper object of worship , and that the wo rship of any creature , of any human being , however exalted * api
proach es at least to the sin ot ww This u i a difference of some magnitude , 1 3 ut what is that difference ^ greater which subsists between J > cinians ; " and other Unitarians * * - Pastor explain whether it be in vemj any tfc ting more than a difference c cerain g the age of Jcsu * ^ » n 31
Untitled Article
64 Q M V . Aspland ' s Second Reply to Pastor on the Term U nitarian
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1815, page 640, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1765/page/40/
-