Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 10:4 (Fall 1967)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous

---

BETS 10:4 (Fall 1967) p. 245

Book Reviews

The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, by Conrad Wright, Boston; Beacon Press, 1966. Pp. 305. $2.45 (Beacon Paperback), reviewed by John H. Gerstner, Pittsburg, Pa.

According to the late Harvard specialist, Perry Miller, the covenant theology appearing in Calvinistic Puritanism was an incipient form of Arminianism. His student, our author, assumes his mentor’s erroneous thesis in the Introduction and then traces the development of Arminianism leading to Unitarianism in the following interesting and scholarly but rather disjointed chapters. Unlike Jonathan Edwards, Wright thinks there was little overt Arminianism before the Great Awakening. In the Awakening itself Arminianism appears especially in Charles Chauncy’s opposition to “enthusiasm” in favor of a gradualism in conversion but a sharp distinction of the appraisals of Chauncy and Edwards is not established. The discussion of “Original Sin: 1743–1760” is fundamental because it is here that the essential difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is thought to have located. Against the imputation of Adam’s sin Arminians contended for the individual’s responsibility only for the individual’s sins and pressed the unfairness of traditional federal theology without denying the actual sinfulness of all men.

Jonathan Edwards completely misunderstood the Arminian view of the will confusing it with that of Isaac Watt’s moderate Calvinism, and failed to recognize that the Arminians agreed with his own analysis! The only difference between Edwards and Whitby is in the latter’s denial that man is biased toward evil. If the discussion of the will misses the mark hopelessly, the treatment of the justification issue (Chapter 5) does not reach or even approach the target. The Arminian advocacy of rational supernaturalism is well done without clearly distinguishing between it and the Puritan natural theology except for an imprecise reference to the Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit. Wright recognizes, correctly we think, that the acceptance of the monopolistic benevolence of God is crucial to liberal Arminianism (incidentally, he nowhere takes cognizance of a continuing non-liberal orthodox Arminianism) but here, too, he does some injustice to the orthodox view by making its “glory of God” appear to stand over against divine benevolence. “The Salvation of All Men: 1763–1791” may be the most interesting chapter in showing the inevitable tendency of “Arminianism” to this conclusion (as well as the yielding of principle to prudence in the open advocacy of it by such men as Chauncy). It is also sobering to watch the author trace the steady movement of liberalism from an orthodox Christology through Arianism into plain humanism. But Arminian liberals joined forces with the orthodox against the i...

visitor : : uid: ()