Arianism/Socinianism

Arianism/Socinianism –  These two terms are usually distinguished from each other, even though both are forms of Unitarian belief. During the eighteenth century, Arians rejected the traditional view of the Trinity, but still held that Christ, though a subordinate messenger from God, was nevertheless pre-existent and divine; Socinians stressed the essential humanity of Christ in which his life and death served as an example for all Christians to emulate, rejecting not only the traditional view of the Trinity but also the Atonement, advocating instead a universal redemption. Arianism was considered more congenial to trinitarianism; many congregations that generally adhered to orthodox Calvinism (Particular Baptists and Independents) often had members who were Arians in the last half of the eighteenth century.

J. T. Rutt, in a letter to the editor of the Monthly Repository 13 (1818), 615, dated 2 September 1818, from Clapton (his letter is situated next to a letter by the Unitarian writer of moral fiction, Mary Hughes), mentions a letter from the Unitarian congregation at Alnwick (from a previous issue) concerning the reasons for a portion of the congregation leaving the first church. The writer of that letter said that “there were several Universalists and Arians amongst us, but not one Unitarian.” Rutt believes this distinction, made many years earlier by Joseph Priestley, is unfortunate. According to Rutt, even though the Unitarians believe only in the humanity of Christ and the Arians believe in a pre-existent Christ (though not eternal, hence created), both Arians and Socinians should be included as Unitarians. He holds with those who worship “one God the Father of all, who is above all,” were in opposition to “that paradox of the schools, Trinity in Unity; in which Watts, till better instructed, could even discover an infant Deity” (615).