The Blessed Trinity in Tradition: The Antitrinitarian Heresies and Their Condemnation

Chapter II: The Blessed Trinity in Tradition

Section 1: The and Their by the Church

SECTION i THE AND THEIR BY THE CHURCH There are two logical processes whereby the dogma of the Blessed Trinity can be essentially perverted; per defectum, i. e., by exaggerating the notion of unity and eliminating that of Trinity (Monarchianism); or per excessum, i. e., by exaggerating the concept of the Trinity, making it a Trinity of Divine Natures and thereby denying the unity of Persons (Tritheism). Tritheism will receive due consideration in the second part of this volume, in which we shall expound the doctrine of Unity in the Trinity (Unit as in Trinitate). Monarchianism, or the doctrine of the Monorchia, as it is called by an assumption of exclusive orthodoxy like that which has led to the adoption of the term ” Unitarianism ” at the present day,1 denies the distinction of Persons in the Divine Nature. It is threefold: (i) crass Monarchianism, in its present-day form called Unitarianism, which denies all distinction of persons in God. (2) Modalism, so-called, which admits a Trinity of Persons, but holds that the difference between them lCfr. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. xi%% x 114 MONARCHIANISM “5 is not real, but merely nominal or modal; this heresy is called Sabellianism from its chief champion, Sabellius. (3) Subordinationism, which, while it readily grants that the three Divine Persons are really distinct, insists that they are not coequal, but subordinate one to the other (Arianism, Macedonianism). This logical division of Monarchianism substantially coincides with the successive phases of its historic development. Readings: — The various text-books of Church History, especially Alzog (Pabisch-Byrne’s translation), Vol. I, pp. 348 sqq., Sth ed., Cincinnati 1899; Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, London 1910; *Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vols. I sqq.; *Oswald, Trinitatslehre, §§ 8”9> Paderborn 1888; H. Couget, La SS. Triniti et les Dogmes Antitrinitaires, Paris 1905; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 63 sqq., New York 191a i. The Heresy of Monarchianism. — This is an ancient heresy, the beginnings of which can be traced to the second century of the Christian era. It is either Dynamistic or Patripassian. Dynamistic Monarchianism asserts that the Father alone is true God, and that the divine element in Christ was merely a power (Swajus) indwelling in Him as an impersonal divine spirit. Patripassian Monarchianism completely identifies the Son with the Father, asserting that the Person of the Father was made flesh and suffered on the Cross. The Patripassian is superior to the

Article 1: Crass Monarchianism

n6 THE TRINITY IN TRADITION Dynamistic form of Monarchianism in so far as it acknowledges Christ to be a manifestation of the Divine Essence. a) Dynamistic Monarchianism was championed by the Ebionites, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocratians, who all held that Christ was a mere man, though endowed with divine powers or energies, after the manner of the Old Testament prophets or the pagan soothsayers. The chief representatives of this heresy were Theodotus of Byzantium (about A. D. 192), a tanner by trade, and his pupil Theodotus the Younger. The latter, surnamed the Money-Changer, asserted that a divine power had indeed descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, but that the same Divine Power (Adyo$, vtos) had appeared in Melchisedech, who had been mediator and intercessor for the angels in the same sense in which Christ was for men, and whose followers were therefore called Melchisedechians.2 A somewhat later protagonist of this heresy was the notorious Paul of Samosata, an extremely clever man, who died as Bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 260. He taught that Christ, though supernaturally begotten and born of a virgin, was nevertheless a mere man, and that the Divine Logos (t. e.t the impersonal wisdom of God) was not united to Him substantially, but simply as a quality or power; whence His deification was foreordained. Thus ” the Logos was greater than Christ; the Logos was from above, Christ from below; Christ suffered in His nature and wrought miracles by grace.” It was 2 Alzog, Universal Church History, English tr., Vol. I, 350; Blunt’s Dictionary of Sects, Here* ties, etc., new impression, London 1903, pp. 304 sq. On Theodotus the tanner, and his pupil the money-changer, cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, 28; Theodoretus, Haeret. Fab., II, s. MONARCHIANISM xxg only by means of divine grace and His own co-operation therewith, that Christ ultimately became God.8 kindred heresy was that of Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium (d. 366), who “increased the scandal, by advocating, and with greater boldness, an almost Unitarian doctrine.” 4 He taught that the Logos is the impersonal intellect, while is the impersonal power of God, in whom there is but one Person, viz., the Father. Hence ©cos = Xoyoirartap. Christ, according to Photinus, was a simple man, in whom the Logos dwelt as efficient power (evc’pyoa Spaarucrj), and who earned for himself the name of ” God ” by his obedience. The main argument of all these heretics was this. If the Father were other than the Son, and each were nevertheless true God, it would be necessary to assume the existence of two Gods (Ditheism). Consequently Christ, though endowed with divine power (Mva/ws), is a mere man. Paul of Samosata quoted in support of his heresy John XVII, 3; XIV, 28; Matth. XI, 27; Luke II, 52. b) The Patripassian form of Monarchianism, according to the Philosophoumena,* seems to have had for its author Noetus of Smyrna, a philosopher of the school of Heraclitus. He denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead and taught that the Father was born, suffered, and died in Christ.6 Another leader of the 8 Cfr. Alzog, I, 350 sq.; Hergenrother, Kirchengeschichte, 3rd ed., Vol. I, p. 222. There is some difficulty in determining what were the opinions of the Samosatene. Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 237 sqq.; Idem, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 3 sqq. 4 Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 313. s IX, 7 sqq., ed. Miller, p. 284, Oxon. 1851. Cfr. BardenhewerShahan, Patrology, pp. 209 sqq. 6 * Pater passus est.* In a fragment of the writings of Hippolytus Noetus’s teaching is stated in these terms: ” Tbv Xpiarbv elvai rbp varipa ical atirbv rbv varipa yeyevprjedai kclI ireirovdipcu ical a\iroT€dv7iKivai** (Fragm. contr. Noet., c. 1.) On Noetus and the u8 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES Patripassian heretics was Praxeas (about A. D. 192), a contemporary of Tertullian, by whom he was denounced as one of the “vanissimi Monarchiani” who boasted, ” Manarchiam habemus.” 7 Regardless of the distinction between Nature and Person, Praxeas taught that the Divine Substance has but one Hypostasis. As Father, God is a spirit, but He is called Son in so far as He has assumed human flesh (without a soul) — Ipse se filium sibi fecit Consequently Christ is indeed true God, but He is not the Son of God; and inasmuch as Christ was the Father incarnate, it was the Father who suffered and died on the Cross. In confirmation of his error Praxeas quoted John X, 30: Ego et Pater unum sumus — I and the Father are one; * and John XIV, 9: * Philippe, qui videt me, videt et Pattern — Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father also. Praxeas and his adherents were therefore also Called vloiraTOp€

face at a council held in Antioch A. D. 269.10 Paul was deposed and excommunicated, but tenaciously held on to his see until the Emperor Aurelian put an end to the reign of Queen Zenobia, into whose favor he had insinuated himself.11 Noetus, when cited before a council in Asia Minor, sought to conceal his Patripassian leanings by emphasizing his monotheism, and pathetically exclaimed: “What wrong have I done? I adore the One God, I know but One God, and none beside Him, who was born, suffered, and died ! ” 12 The assembled bishops (called presbyteri) did not reply that they were Ditheists. They simply declared: “We, too, adore the One God, but in a manner in which we know that He is adored rightly. And we likewise possess the One Christ, … the Son of God, who suffered and died.” 18 Noetus was excommunicated A. D. 170. Praxeas had to recant his errors in writing. He went to Africa, where he found a staunch opponent in Tertullian, who employed the Apostles’ Creed as the most effective weapon against the Patripassian heresy.14 Against the later ” Unitarianism ” of the Socinians, who also denied the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and taught a sort of abstract monotheism, Pope Paul IV (A. D. 1555) issued his dogmatic Constitution * Cum quorundam.* 15 10 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 165. 11 A. D. 272. Cfr. Newman, The Avians of the Fourth Century, pp. 3 sqq.; Edm. Venables in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, s. v. •* Paul us of Samosata*; Hefele, History of the Councils (Engl, ed.), Vol. I, pp. 118 sqq. The authenticity of the * Epistola Synodica Anni 269” is doubtful. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 165. 12 Quoted by Epiphanius, H acres., 57, x. 13 Epiph., /. c. 14 Tertull., Contr. Prax., c 2. 15 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 993. On modern Antitrinitarianism, see Chapter IV, I x, infra. r 120 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES Readings: — *Hagemann, Die romische Kirche und ihr Einfluss auf Disziplin und. Dogma in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten, Freiburg 1864; Hergenrdther-Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 245 sqq., Freiburg 1902; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Freiburg 1892; A. Harnack, art. ” Monarchianism” in the New Schaff-Hersog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, pp. 453-461, New York 1910; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, 290 sqq., St. Louis 1910; J. Chapman, O. S. B., art. ” Monarchians ” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 448 sqq. i. The Heresy of Sabellius. — Sabellius (about A. D. 250) was not an extreme Monarchianist; he recognized the existence of a Trinity, though an imperfect one, in the Godhead.16 The Sabellian Triad is no true, real, immanent Trinity. It is merely a modal, external, and transitive distinction, based upon the relation of God (in Whom the Sabellians admit but one Person) to the created universe. In other words, the Trinity of the Sabellians is a merely external Trinity of manifestation, not an internal one of life. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they argue, are three distinct modes (irpoawira) by which the one Person of the Godhead manifests Himself, and which are interrelated as body, soul, and spirit in man, or light, warmth, and sphericity in the sun. The undifferentiated Divine Monad has in course of time developed and ” dilated ” into a Triad. In its role of Creator it is i6Cfr. Newman, The Arians of also Chapman’s article ” Monarthe Fourth Century, Cb. I, | 5: chians” in the Catholic Encyclo” Sabellianism,” pp. 116-132; see pedia, Vol. X, 448 sqq.

Article 2: The Modalism of Sabellius

called Father; as the Redeemer it is called Son; and as the Sanctifier, enlightening and regenerating the faithful, it is called Holy Ghost. Hence the Modalist formula: ” Tpcfc ovofxaaiai iv fua Woorao-ci,” or, still more sharply: Mia V7roora

so that he was accused of teaching Ditheism.18 The most objectionable passage 19 in the latter’s writings was probably this: ” The Son of God is a work or creature (woirffia) and something that has come into being; He is not distinct according to His nature, but foreign to the Father in substance ” [owria undoubtedly is here the same as womw, both terms being used promiscuously for a time to signify nature or person]. At this juncture (A. D. 262) Pope Dionysius issued a truly epochmaking decision, of which St. Athanasius has preserved some fragments. In his epistle the sovereign teacher of Christendom distinctly condemns the Sabellian heresy, but at the same time censures the ditheistic expressions used by the Bishop of Alexandria. It is not too much to say that this Apostolic letter condemned not only Monarchianism and Sabellianism, but likewise, in advance, Subordinationism and Tritheism, which were the products of a later age.20 The energetic and loyal Bishop of Alexandria, who in his zeal had overshot the truth, readily submitted and satisfied the Pope of his good faith by means of an explicit statement which he forwarded to Rome. This important document embodies two points of particular interest. In the first place Denis explains that he had employed the unfortunate term iroirjfia not in the meaning of ” creature,” but in the hypostatic sense of productus, i. e., genitus, in order to emphasize the reality and self-existence of the Person of the Logos against Sabellius. Secondly, he cordially accepts the new locution oixoovaun t$ ®cw, used 18 Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 126 sq. 19 Quoted by St. Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii Alex., Migne, P. G., XXV, 465. Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, I, pp. 45 sq. 20 The Latin text of such parts of Pope Dionysius’s epistle as have come down to us, can be found in Scheeben’s Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 746. SUBORDINATIONISM by Pope Dionysius in his dogmatic epistle, though, as he takes pains to remark, he had ” not found this term anywhere in Holy Scripture.,, 21 This goes to show that the term was coined and circulated long before the Council of Nicaea; in other words, the heresy of Arius was condemned before it was ever hatched. The phrase ofioovmos tw ©cw embodies all the essential elements of the dogma: — Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Divinity, and His with the Father.22 Readings: — Worm, Historia Sabelliana 1796; *D611inger, Hip poly t und Callistus, Ratisbon 1853 (English translation, Hippolytus and Callistus, Edinburg 1876); Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 116 sqq., New Ed., London 1901; L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church (English tr ), Vol. I, pp. 225 sqq.

Article 3: The Subordinationism of Arius and Macedonius

THE SUBORDINATIONISM OF ARIUS AND MACEDONIUS i. The Heresy of Subordinationism. — This heresy involved the Church in many terrific conflicts. It started with an attack on the coequality of the Son with the Father (Arianism), and ultimately impugned the dogma of the of with the Father and the Son (Macedonianism, Pneumatomachians). 2iCfr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, I, p. 44. 22 Cfr. St. August., Lontr. Maxim., II, 14, 3: ” Hoc est Mud bfioofoiov, 9 quod fides antiqua pepererat — This is that famous term dfioovcios to which the ancient faith had given birth.” 124 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES a) The salient tenets of Arianism28 are these: The Logos began His existence in time. Consequently there was a time when the Son of God was not (rjv irort, otc owe rjv). He is not begotten out of the substance of the Father, but made by the free will of the Father “out of nothing” (e£ ovk ovtwv y£yov€v 6 Adyos). Though He existed before all creatures, i. e., before the beginning of time, the Logos does not exist from everlasting, and consequently He is not God, but a creature of the Father (iroirjim, Krlcrfm rov warpo?), exalted indeed above all other creatures, because God’s instrument in creating the world. Therefore He is ” God ” by grace (foW, 1**toxq, KCLTaxprj(TTiK£)

Greater One = the Logos; Greatest of all = God the Father. Some Semi-Arians were willing to admit the Divinity of Christ; but they refused to forswear the heretical conceit that is a mere creature. It was for this reason that St. Athanasius called them ” enemies of the Spirit” (7TV€V/juzto/«i;(Oi).

2. Its Condemnation. — For the first time since the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, the infallible Church exercised her teaching authority against Subordinationism at two ecumenical synods, of which the first condemned Arianism, while the second dealt a death blow to the heresy of the Macedonianists. a) The First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea A. D. 325, in the reign of Constantine,24 solemnly rejected the heresy of Arius. It did this in a twofold manner: positively, by enlarging and expounding the Apostles’ Creed; negatively, by anathematizing Arius and his followers. The famous Nicene Creed revolves about the term ofioovcrios, which was rejected by the -Arians as ” unscriptural.” The symbol itself is equivalent to a dogmatic definition, and its history is highly instructive for any one who would trace the development of the Catholic conception of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity. 24 For a brief account of its his- 270. More detailed information in tory, its transactions, and its conse- Hefele’s History of the Councils, quences, see Newman, The Arians Vols. I and II of the English transof the Fourth Century, pp. 337- lation.

At first the Fathers of the Council thought it sufficient to adopt the formula * Filius ex Deo* against the Arian c£ ovk Zvroiv. But when the friends of Arius, particularly Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, in order to conceal the real question at issue, willingly accepted this formula on the ground that all things are ” from God/’ the Ik tov iraTpos was amplified into he rrjs overlap tov 7raTpds. Finally, in order to baffle the Eusebians, the phrase 6/wovauo^ tg> irarpi (consubstantial with the Father) was added. This proved the utter Arian heresy. The decisive passages of the Nicene Creed finally took this shape: ” Et in unum Dominum, Iesum Christum, Filium Dei, qui ex Patre unigenitus generatur {tov vl6v tov ®cov ycwqOivra Ik tov waTpbs fiovoyevij), hoc est ex substantia Patris (a ouox’as tow iraTpos), Deum ex Deo (<5>edv Ik €ov), lumen de lumine, Deum verum ex Deo veto, genitum, non factum, (ycwr)Oivra, ov irovqOlvra), consubstantialem Patri (6/aoovmov tw iraTpt) — And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.” 25 This clear-cut definition irrevocably established the dogma of Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Divinity, and His with the Father.28 The heretical antitheses of Arius were condemned in a special anathematism appended to the Creed, which reads as follows: “Eos autem qui dicunt: erat [tempus] quando non erat (rjv wore, ore ovk rjv) et 25 Newman’s translation. Cfr. Se- 26 Cfr. St. Athanasius, De Decret. led Treatises of St. Athanasius in Nicaen. Syn., reproduced in Migne, Controversy with the Arians, Vol. I, P. G.t XXV, 415 sqq. P. 57.

priusquam gigneretur, non erat, et aiunt Filium Dei ex non exstantibus factum (on i$ ovk ovtw iyevero) vel ex alia substantia vel essentia esse (e£ eTcpas vTrooraatm 1j ovo-ias dvai) vel mutabilem vel vertibilem (oAAomutov ^ rptiTTov) esse, hos anathematizat Ecclesia catholica — But those who say, ’ Once he was not/ and ’ Before His generation He was not/ and ’ He came into being from nothing/ or those who pretend that the Son of God is ’ of other subsistence or substance/ or ’ created/ or ’ alterable/ or ’ mutable/ the Catholic Church anathematizes.,, 27 In this passage the Holy Synod reaffirms the of the Son of God (i. e., Christ), by rejecting the doctrine of the Heterousia, and asserts His Divinity by emphasizing that He possesses the attributes of eternity, uncreatedness, and immutability.28 b) Pope Damasus, at a synod held in Rome, A. D. 380,29 so thoroughly repudiated the heresy of Macedonius that the twenty-fourth in his series of anathemas has been justly styled “a summary of the contents of all the others, and the keystone of all previous dogmatic formulas.” 30 The Second Ecumenical Council, convoked by the Emperor Theodosius I at Constantinople, A. D. 381, formally defined in these words: “Et 27 Newman’s translation. {Select so definitely settled and so familiarly Treatises of St, Athanasius, Vol. received as afterwards.” {Select I, p. 57.) Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, 28 The Fathers of Nicaea use p. 455.) {urdffraffis as synonymous with 29 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, £nov

in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivfficantem cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per prophet as — And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceedeth from the Father, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who has spoken through the prophets/’ Apart from the significant appellation ” Lord ” (to Kvpvov) is defined in this passage indirectly rather than directly. He is not formally called God, but certain divine attributes are ascribed to Him; viz., vivification or the giving of life, adoration and glory such as is due to the Father and the Son, and the illumination of the prophets. In ascribing these attributes to the Third Person, the Council manifestly meant to assert the of with the Father and the Son. The hypostatic difference is sufficiently indicated by the clause, * Qui ex Patre procedit — Who proceedeth from the Father,* which combines the two Scripture texts John XV, 26, and 1 Cor. II, 12. The reason why the Council of Constantinople did not define from the Son (Filioque), is that the Macedonians had not denied, but, on the contrary, maintained it, though they erred in holding that proceeded from the Son as a mere creature (iroirjfia, factura).31 The schismatic Greeks, therefore, have no right to quote this Council Sl It was not even fitting or ad- Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of visable for the Council to mention Catholic Theology, I, 296 sq.) the Procession from the Son. (Cfr.

in favor of their heretical teaching that proceeds from the Father alone. The Second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a general council, and the fact that it later came to rank as such, is due to its subsequent reception by the Universal Church rather than to the formal approbation of its decrees by Pope Damasus. This Council completed the preliminary formulation of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. The so-called Athanasian Creed, which belongs to the sixth century, merely restates the ancient teaching of the Church in clearer terms and expounds it more at length. The most perfect Trinitarian formula, from a technical point of view, and also the most comprehensive, as we have already intimated, is that drawn up by the Eleventh Council of Toledo, A. D. 67s.32 The later synodical decisions do not concern us here. The dogmatic importance of the Constantinopolitan Creed, which has been adopted into the liturgy of the Mass, cannot be too strongly emphasized, though in the light of recent researches this symbol may no longer be regarded as a mere amplification of the Nicene Creed. It seems that the Fathers assembled at Constantinople did not have before them the Creed of Nicaea, but a different symbol which had been adopted by a provincial synod of Jerusalem held about the same time.83 The schismatic Greeks cherish the so-called Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople with an almost superstitious reverence as their inviolable and sole norm of faith. They call it to UpwTdTov

fied form believed to have been given to it by the Council of Constantinople],” says W. Gass,84 “is the jewel of their faith, a brief but exhaustive precis of their dogmatic teaching. Its letters are woven into the vestments of their highest ecclesiastical dignitaries at Moscow. Their liturgy culminates in its recitation, and the great bell of the Kremlin is rung during its recital, which also forms part of the ceremony when the Czar is crowned in the presence of his people. It is for this reason that the faithful are so familiar with its text, which is furthermore constantly recalled to their mind by numerous symbolic pictures circulated among them.” Readings: — On Arianism, Walch, Ketzergeschichte, Vol. II, pp. 385 sqq., Leipzig 1764; *M6hler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit im Kampfe tnit dem Arianismus, Mainz 1844; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 806 sqq., Stuttgart 1845 (English translation, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 5 vols., Edinburgh 1861-63); *Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit, §§ 25 sqq., Tubingen 1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 8, Romae 188 1; J. Marquardt, Cyrilli Hierosolym. De Contentionibus et Placitis Arianorum Sententia, Braunsberg 1881; Lauchert, Die Lehre des hi. Athanasius, Miinchen 1895; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed., London 1900; Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, New Impression, London 1901; Idem, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians, 9th ed. (Vol. II, Being an Appendix of Illustrations), London 1903; Idem, Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, New Ed., pp. 137 sqq., London 1895. On modern Antitrinitarianism, or Unitarianism, cfr. Trechsel, Die protestantischen Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socin, Heidelberg 1839-44; F. S. Bock, Historia Antitrinitariorum, maxime Socinianismi et Socinianorum, 2 vols., Regiomont. 1774-5; Th. Parker, A Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion, London 34 Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 119, Berlin 1872.

1846; *Burnat, Lelio Socin, Vevcy 1894; Ph. Huppert, Der deutsche Protestantismus zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, 3rd ed., Koln 1902; J. H. Allen, Historical Sketch of the Unitarian Movement Since the Reformation, New York 1894; R. Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, 3 vols., London 1850; T. R. Slicer, art. * Unitarianism in the United States, in the Encyclopedia Americana, VoL XV, New York 1904.