Below is an essay I wrote for Unitarian College last year, in which we were asked to 'choose one historic or contemporary Unitarian theologian and summarise their thought and their relevance for Unitarian communities today.' I chose Andrews Norton (1786 –1853). Although he is barely known in the UK today, his stature in America was such that he was once known as The Unitarian Pope. I wish he was as famous as other illustrious Unitarians in our history.
Sorry, but blogger doesn't do footnotes, so if you want to read the footnotes you'll have to scroll to the end.
.jpg)
Andrews Norton
As the thought of a denomination is reduced to a few dominant voices, its tradition and theological discourse becomes beholden to ‘great men’, (unfortunately they are all men), and the truism that ‘great men have great faults’. Thus, Priestley, Channing, and Martineau are made to bear too much weight. Their errors and omissions taint other thoughts which deserve to be preserved, or at least taken more seriously. Maybe we would be kinder to these great men, as well as their almost forgotten contemporaries such as Andrews Norton, if we were able to place their thought in a broader context.
We see the Great Man fallacy In Martineau’s The Three Stages of Unitarian Theology, 1869. Here, Martineau, himself one of our ‘great men’, presents an interpretation of hitherto Unitarian history that excludes Norton, and other Unitarian voices, identifying Unitarianism as having moved through two stages, represented by Priestley and Channing. He characterises this past as a swing from the unemotional, intellectual excesses of Priestley to their overcorrection in the piety of Channing, before finding a happier balance in his own proposals.
Martineau, without acknowledging his debt to Hegel, presents his own theology as a synthesis of the dialectic of Priestley and Channing. Thus he falls into the ‘great man’ trap. As well as conflating whole ages with individuals, Martineau summarises Priestley and Channing rather crudely, and so not only contributes to the erasure of alternative voices, such as Norton, but also, because of his own dominant position, bequeaths a narrow view of Priestley and Channing, seeing their contributions as mere opposite poles through which his own theology might be reached. One might level such a criticism at any theology which subscribes to such a Hegelian view of history.
Martineau praises Priestley as a reaction against Calvinism, but then faults him for being too remote from the emotions, particularly in his embrace of necessarianism. Priestley’s rational and Biblical rejection of the Trinity he considered to have led to a cold and formal religion of logic that lacked warmth and spirituality.
He then offers faint praise to Channing, as the antidote to the aloofness and rigour of Priestley’s rationalism. Channing, he characterises, as having given birth to a pietistic form of Unitarian Christianity, focused on the ethical sphere of private and corporate life, but still failing to engage the full emotional range that religious liberalism was capable of. He saw the loss of living spirituality as the baby that had been thrown out with the Trinitarian bathwater, and so proposed a Unitarian revival of the ‘Trinitarian functions without its paradoxes’
Martineau’s scheme would not have survived had he taken Andrews Norton into account.
Andrews Norton was a Bostonian theologian who lived from 1786 to 1853, and so was contemporary to Channing, who lived from 1789 to 1842. Priestley, 1733 to 1804, died when Channing and Norton were in their teens, and so was a figure of the past, albeit the recent past. Martineau was slightly younger than Norton (and Channing) being born in 1805 and so was a contemporary of a younger generation.
Within any denomination there is a danger that its multiplicity of voices become compressed into a small, unrepresentative list of names. This is particularly true of theologians from past centuries, even more so when they are not looked upon kindly. Unitarianism is especially vulnerable to this tendency, given our small numbers, our attitude to the past, and the great difficulty in accessing the works of even well known Unitarian theologians.
Dominant figures such as Priestley, Channing and Martineau are often seen as representative of the Unitarian thought of entire countries and centuries. This would not be such a problem if these figures had absorbed and refined the best currents of their time and place, but this is not so, something that becomes apparent when we read the work of Andrews Norton.
Norton agreed and differed from Channing and Martineau, as well as Priestley, in important and fascinating ways. And all four men agreed and differed from Socinianism, as represented in the Racovian Catechism. They all got labelled Socinian, the term that applied first to Priestley before he adopted the term Unitarian, a move that Norton disapproved of. This was a mistake. In fact, Priestley, Martineau, Norton, and Socinus (Sozzini) held developed views on a full range of theological questions, and differed sharply in important areas.
Norton wasn’t alone in that he differed from Priestley, Channing and Martineau. They had other contemporaries who differed from them in important ways, but Norton, who was known as ‘The Unitarian Pope’, is a particularly good representative of alternative currents in nineteenth century Unitarianism that we would do well to be aware of. He is more than a mere representative of ‘the rest’. In him we find characteristics and attitudes that are needed today. It does a disservice to everyone when such rich diversity of thought is lost.
Norton was certainly an admirer of Priestley, being, like Channing, among the ‘liberal’ party in the orthodox/liberal split within American Congregationalism, a split that owed much to Priestley’s move to America.1 But he was no disciple. He wrote a passionate, and lengthy defence of Priestley, in a contemporary controversy between Priestly and a Dr Horsley,2 but this
concerned Christology only, the matter in which Priestley and Norton can be said to share a Socinian view. This defence met with Channing’s approval,3 which is strange, since Channing was often enigmatic in matters of Christology, and when he wasn’t, he seemed Arian, not Socinian. Priestley and Norton did share a Socinian Christology but their other differences are significant. Norton and Priestley were definite in their Socinian Christology, whereas Channing, seemed vague, diplomatic, or frankly Arian.
Norton is himself sometimes described as Arian, perhaps because of his strong belief in immortality and the historicity of the resurrection, but this is erroneous. Along with Priestley and Socinus, he denied the pre-existence of Jesus. His passionate advocacy for Socinian Christology was less rationalistic than Priestley, but it was not purely derivative, nor was it without sophistication.4
Perhaps Norton’s greatest potential legacy to today’s Unitarianism is in that although he wrote against theological adversaries, often with robust rhetoric, he did more than just attack. He developed a position which he stated positively and consistently throughout his career, and he was prepared to defend this position from all directions.
This is crucial, and not something often associated with liberal Christians or Unitarians. He began his published career defending liberal Christianity against Calvinism and Trinitarianism. He ended his career defending it against transcendentalism, pantheism, panentheism and Hegelianism (often overlapping categories). We should ignore the temptation to see this, simply as a poacher turning gatekeeper, for there is remarkable consistency between his early and late positions.
This can be seen by comparing his early and late polemical writings.
In his Defence of Liberal Christianity, Norton is writing against Calvinists, the ‘orthodox’ party in the post-Priestley split in American Congregationalism. Here he characteristically states what he is for as well as against:
Those are to be considered as liberal Christians, who believe that Christianity, in respect to its main design, is a revelation from God ; a revelation of religious truths beyond all comparison more important and interesting, than what unenlightened reason can with any approach to certainty discover ; a revelation of the being and moral government of God, of the immortality of man, of the purpose of the present life, of the character here to be formed, and of our condition in a future state as depending on our present conduct
Years later he wrote in the role of conservative, albeit in the conservation of liberal Christianity, in his Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity. Here he rails against transcendentalism, the panentheism of Spinoza, and the way in which its ideas were being presented with a sprinkling of vaguely Christian language.5 He once again begins with a positive statement of belief:
By a belief in Christianity, we mean the belief that Christianity is a revelation by God of the truths of religion ; and that the divine authority of him whom God commissioned to speak to us in his name was attested, in the only mode in which it could be, by miraculous displays of his power. Religious truths are those truths, and those alone, which concern the relations of man to God and eternity. It is only as an immortal being and a creature of God, that man is capable of religion .
It is also to Norton’s credit that even at his most polemical, he is scrupulous in demonstrating that he has read and comprehends the ideas he is attacking. How great would be the benefit if Unitarians today were to ape just this one virtue of his.
Norton had a relatively high view of the authority of scripture, believing it to be a receptacle of indirect revelation. In this he anticipated the approach of neo-orthodox theologians, in particular Emil Brunner. This high view was balanced (or possibly kept in tension) by his broad acceptance of liberal scholarship. Again, this places him in that difficult position which is open to attack, and needs defending from at least two directions.
In his Defence of Liberal Christianity he wrote that Liberal Christians,
…while they regard the Christian Scriptures as the writings of men instructed by Christ himself, or by immediate revelation, in the nature and design of Christianity, they yet consider that the same modes of criticism and explanation are to be applied to these Scriptures as to all other ancient writings.
So he has, we see, no problem with treating scripture, in one sense, like any other ancient text. And yet he also speaks of the Bible as displaying unusual levels of consistency.
When he comes to the study of the Scriptures, in proportion as he removes all the accumulated
rubbish of technical theology, under which their meaning has been buried, and obtains a distinct
view of it, he will discern new and very striking evidence of the truth of our religion. It is evidence, but a small portion of which has yet been distinctly presented by any writer. It arises from the agreement of the New Testament with itself, the coincidence and correspondence of its different parts , and its agreement with all our knowledge respecting the state of things which existed during the time of the first preaching of Christianity.6
And, pleasingly, he did not allow conservatives to accuse him or other liberal Christians of treating scripture too lightly. Norton was firm, even audacious, in stating that to appreciate the historical context in which scripture was written was to be more ‘biblical’ than those ‘othodox’ who were more concerned with conforming to ‘systems’ . In writing against Calvinists within New England Congregationalism, he effectively turned the tables, on the question of biblical authority, writing that liberal Christians were those who believed Christianity to be a revelation from God ; a revelation of religious truths beyond all comparison more important and interesting, than what unenlightened reason can with any approach to certainty discover ;
whereas…
….The orthodox, on the contrary, do not consider Christianity in respect to its principal purpose as a revelation of any kind, but as a scheme by which mankind, created with natures so corrupt as never to perform the will of God, and therefore justly exposed to his wrath and the severest punishments, and utterly impotent to do any thing to deliver themselves from this condition, are now, through the sufferings and death of Christ, put into such a state, that the mercy of God is offered to all and extended to some individuals.7
His view of the Old Testament seems unsophisticated today.8 He considered much of the Pentatuch as a mixture of ‘divine accommodation’ or straightforward ignorance and error, and he is guilty of careless language towards Jews. This is a common problem among liberal Christians, with ‘progressive’ revelation contrasting benighted and savage Israel with an enlightened and gentle New Testament.
Immortalism was a constant and prominent theme in Norton’s writings. One might say it was foundational. This was at odds with Priestley who held the Socinian belief in mortalism - that human beings are born mortal, whereas Norton considered humans immortal, and believed this was an essential truth made clear through revelation. In this he showed his agreement with both Channing and Martineau. I find Norton’s immortalism disappointing, for it seems to unconsciously import ‘pagan’ philosophical ideas into the Biblical worldview, a practice that he criticises in his opponents, yet excuses here.
Socinus had established mortalism on the biblical grounds that Adam and Eve were clearly expelled from Eden before they could eat from the Tree of Life. That they should be prevented from tasting the fruit that would have given them immortality is explicitly stated in Genesis 3:22. Where Socinus derived this belief from biblical authority, Priestley affirmed the biblical teaching as confirming what science made clear and reasonable. Norton was more in awe of scripture than Priestley, and his commitment to immortalism leant heavily on scriptural support. So much, then, for a ‘stage of Unitarianism’ with its implied uniformity of thought.
He made clear his approval of platonic immortalism, which he saw as the ‘glass darkly’ glimpsed by philosophers, as opposed to the bright light of the revelation made by Jesus. He saw the Resurrection of Jesus, as attested in the New Testament, along with other miracles, as bringing the clearest demonstration of truths that ancient philosophers had glimpsed. Where others (myself included) would see Jesus primarily as universalising the God of Israel (with no assumptions about inherent immortality), Norton seemed to see Jesus’s call to the world as universalizing a God that seems more Greek than Jewish.
Norton’s belief in natural immortality was his greatest weakness. He leant on revelation, as attested in scripture as the ground of his belief in human immortality but ignored the Socinian conclusion drawn from Genesis 3:22. His view of immortality seemed to stem from his lack of interest in eschatology.9 This was in stark contrast to Priestley, who was a convinced historic premillennialist.10
Another consistent theme in Norton’s writing is his conviction that the social influence of Christianity is not only highly positive, it can be included among the proofs of its divine authority. This is in stark contrast to the pietistic Christianity that Martineau faults Channing with.11
As well as benefiting from Norton’s theological biblical insights we would also profit from his observations on church disputes. He was, like Channing, a product of a split within American Congregationalism, which owed much to Priestley’s transatlantic relocation. His observations of the life of intra-denominational controversy will seem familiar to us. In an introduction to a collection of ‘Tracts Concerning Christianity’ he noted that the contents were written at a time of bitter conflict which had since cooled. He observes how the transatlantic appearances of famous individuals heightened a ‘culture war’ of his time, and it wasn’t one-sided. Priestley may have incited the liberals, yet British Calvinists were capable of stirring the pot in America too. He notes:
The tendency to separation between the two parties had, indeed, commenced before the middle of the last century, and was increased by the preaching of Whitefield in this country, who arrived for the first time in 1740, and whose extravagances and denunciations gave offence, and tended to weaken the credit of his doctrines.12
How like today this is, although we feel that it is high profile Americans heightening division in the UK, rather than the other way round. And, of course, this is a phenomenon that we see more widely on both sides of today’s culture wars.
We can also consult Norton on questions of nomenclature. He was passionate and detailed in his attacks on the Trinity, yet he disapproved of the way in which liberal Presbyterians in the UK, along with other followers of Priestley, had adopted the name ‘Unitarian’. He preferred the term ‘liberal Christian’, which had emerged during the split in Congregationalism, being applied by the Orthodox to their opponents, without any intention either of complimenting them or of sneering at them.’
He went on:
The name of ‘Unitarians’, to whatever honor it had been raised by the ‘Polish Brotherhood’...was unfortunate name to be assumed…by a sect among us.
He said, of the Americans who also adopted this name
They…quitted the high ground on which they had stood or might have stood, in company with the good and the wise, the philosophers of different ages and different denominations - with such men as Erasmus, and Grotius, and Locke and Le Clerk, who, according to their light, opposed the religious errors prevailing around them, and were ‘the liberal Christians’ of their day. They exchanged this for a connection with the English Unitarians as they then existed; and notwithstanding the credit conferred of that sect by the eminent talents and virtues of Priestley, and the sturdy honesty of Belsham, this connection was an unfortunate one. They were obliged continually to explain that they were not to be held responsible for the metaphysical doctrines or for many of the religious sentiments of its more conspicuous members, - that they agreed with them only in being antitrinitarians.
He continues:
When a Unitarian was first spoken of among us, a Unitarian Christian, as I have said, was meant. But the adjunct “Unitarian” has succeeded…in dispossessing the substantive “Christian” of its power; and the Christian Unitarians among us have found themselves brought into strange connection with such men as Fox and Martineau in England, with the pantheists Spinoza and Schleiermacher and with the most noted of modern infidels, Strauss, - all of whom I have seen praised…in what were professedly Unitarian publications.
Norton, then, preferred the term Christian Unitarian, to Unitarian or Unitarian Christian.13
How sad that Norton, a man of considerable stature at the time, feared that his name would become associated with that of Martineau. Instead Martineau’s stature grew to the extent that his exclusion of Norton from consideration of what Unitarianism had been and could yet be, helped to bury Norton’s reputation, and with it his writings. Norton had faults and made errors, some of which he shared with Martineau but we would benefit from seeing more in Norton than Martineau ever did. Despite his faults, Norton had great virtues, none more needed than when he spoke prophetically about the dangers that liberal Christians face when they entertain and absorb every new, ‘progressive’ idea without admitting that they had ceased to be Christian. To some he was radical, to others he was conservative. To himself he was a liberal Christian, or a Christian Unitarian, and he was prepared to defend this position from each and any direction. That’s something worth emulating.
Read Andrews Norton online:
The evidences of the genuineness of the Gospels
A translation of the Gospels : with notes
A Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity
Notes
1 See Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America by J.D. Bowers
2 This was so lengthy that it was serialised in the magazine The General Repository. Norton reflected on the failure of this magazine that a contemporary told him he was writing about things that only he understood.
3 Channing’s remarks are quoted by Norton in a letter, but it does not seem that Channing made this statement in print.
4 Analytic Philosopher, and Biblical Unitarian, Dale Tuggy credits tells listeners to his Trinites podcast that there is much to learn from Norton’s commentary on the prologue to John. https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-298-andrews-norton-on-john-1/
5 Norton wrote against Spinoza but also against Hegel, though he did this separately.
6 Extent and Relations of Theology, in Tracts Concerning Christianity p.69
7 From his Defence of Liberal Christianity
8 This can be seen throughout Norton’s work, but particularly in The Pentateuch and its Relationship to the Jewish-Christian Dispensation.
9 In this Norton was consistent with the Racovian Catechism, which seems agnostic, at best on eschatology. It seems that Norton’s immortalism determined his lack of interest in eschatology, it’s less clear why this was so for Socinus, since he was a mortalist, as was Priestley.
10 Much more needs to be said about Unitarianism’s casual dismissal of eschatology, Priestley being the honourable exception.
11 On the connection between theology and society he writes:
Another part of the business of a theologian is to trace the history of our religion , and its effects on the condition of society. In other words, he must be familiar with ecclesiastical history. In this study, one of the most interesting objects of attention will be the origin and progress of those errors, which have cast their shade over the Christian world, and intercepted the influence of the gospel. He will discover, that many of these errors belong to an earlier age than Christianity itself ; and that their sources are to be found in the superstitions, and still more in the philosophy, which existed before our religion was preached to men. The converts to our faith did not yield up their minds to its reception with an entire renunciation of every former belief and prepossession. They did not divest themselves of all former trains of thought and reasoning, and all former imaginations and sentiments. The light which spread over the world was mingled with the darkness which had before prevailed ; and God did not, as in the beginning, divide the light from the darkness. Men received much that was true, but they also retained much that was false ; and truth and falsehood grew up together, and constituted the religion which was professed. The past and present errors of Christians are many of them to be traced to a heathen origin, and especially to the heathen philosophy.
The Extent and Relations of Theology, in Tracts Concerning Christianity p. 74-5
12 Introductory note to the collection Tracts Concerning Christianity p.5
13 One might speculate on whether Norton would maintain this position if he had lived to see Martineau’s dropping of the Trinity, then followed by most ‘Unitarian’ Chrisitans, given his earlier passionate attacks on the Trinity. His Discourse on the Latest form of Infidelity is easily read against this innovation.
Comments
Post a Comment