On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    ous how far this honorable appellation ought to be extended while others perhaps circumscribe its use more than is either just or charitable . Suffer me , Sir , to offer my individual qpinion .

    I think that all those who reject the notion of a plurality of persons in the Godhead , ( as it is expressed , ) are evidently entitled to the appellation of Unitarians . No other question is agitated between the Trinitarians and

    Unitarians , considered as stich ,, but the number of persons in the J ) ciiy ; and as they decide on this one painty ought they to assume respectively the title qF Trinitarian or Unitarian . 1 rnust confess that I cannot deem it j ^ jst or liberal ^ or eligible in any respect , to narrow the pale of Unitarianism , by restricting its application to those alone , who arc further distinguished by other tenets not immediately connected With .

    this general question . What if like the Arians , a person . believe in tTie Doctrine of the atonement , or in the pre- * existence of Christ- —provided hfc do not believe him to be a person equal to the Father , add worthy of equal regard and worship ; is he not still an Unitarian if hfc hold .,

    that " unto us there is but one God , even the Father ?" The doctrine of the atonement indeed , at least the-ortho * dox notion of it ^ I deem a worse error than that of the

    Trinity ^ inasmuch as it more immediately effects morality . But here again , it is but justice to observe , that some Arians do not believe this doctrine under any modification ; while others understand it lpodified in such a way , as to lose all credit with the Orthodox . See Dr . Magee ' s opinion of the author of Ben Mordecai's letters , in p .. 109 ,. and of Dr , Taylor ^ of Norwich , in p . 120 , of the work above quoted . I

    therefore regard the title Unitarian as a generic term , including ali specific differences , such as Socinian , Arian , &c . I acknowledge , Mr . Editor , that it is not wise to dispute about outvies , but as all -Christians are neither wise

    nor good nun ; as many through prejudice or malevolence make use of names as the instruments of reviling and persecution , both in politics and religion ; and as I understand there has been a difference of . opinion among Unitarians themselves concerning the proper application of that title ,

    I have endeavoured to set this subject in its true light , as well as to wipe oft Dr . Magee ' s sneering and illiberal aspersion I . have dwelt too long upon the former part of my text to pay due attention to the latter at present , but if I find

    Untitled Article

    360 On the Application of the Term cf Unitarian . '

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1807, page 360, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2382/page/20/