# Issac Watts - Possibly Unitarian?



## Theoretical (Jan 25, 2007)

I read a book about a host of 18th Century British radical Whigs, _The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman_, by Caroline Robbins, and it was suggested in there that Issac Watts at least had some sympathies with the Unitarian movement as to the nature of God.

Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 25, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> I read a book about a host of 18th Century British radical Whigs, _The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman_, by Caroline Robbins, and it was suggested in there that Issac Watts at least had some sympathies with the Unitarian movement as to the nature of God.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?


Everyone's a unitarian according to the secularists, who wrote the book and what is their lense of history?


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 25, 2007)

Well, there was an awful lot of Deistic Unitarianism among the more politically active English Whigs, so there is perhaps more than a bit to dismiss. But in this case, hopefully, it's a non-issue and misrepresentation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 25, 2007)

Yes, Watts certainly leaned towards Arianism/Unitarianism. There are many places where this is documented. One helpful book which deals with this subject is _Hymns, Heretics and History_ by Louis DeBoer.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?



I have heard that. I spoke with a friend of mine a couple of months back about this and his view was that it is a view pushed by exclusive psalmists to strengthen their arguments agaist unispired hymns. 

My view is that Watts did refuse subscription to formal creeds but that was not unusual at the time however it could be symptomatic of his disagreement with the doctrine of the Trinity. In short, I do not know


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 26, 2007)

Expressing an inability to understand the Trinity is not the same as refusing to believe it. After all, who here among us really understands the Trinity?

I think Isaac Watts did express a difficulty in believing this doctrine because it goes beyond reason. I have read the primary source and it appears not to be a watertight case against him.

Does anyone have Isaac Watt's direct quote so that it can be posted to let the viewers decide?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 26, 2007)

Here is the chapter on Watts' heretical beliefs concerning the Trinity from the book I cited previously. It is well footnoted.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 26, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Here is the chapter on Watts' heretical beliefs concerning the Trinity from the book I cited previously. It is well footnoted.


Wow, that's a real shame, and those are some horrid doctrines he was teaching.


----------



## KenPierce (Jan 26, 2007)

Well-footnoted or not, the piece is horrendously argued. I am not saying that Watts was not heterodox on the Trinity. All I am saying is that this piece is far from proving it. 

How? There is only one daisy-chained quote from Watts himself, without context. It is hard to see how that quote, while troubling, is necessarily unorthodox. Let me explain why. Watts equates Christ with the archangel Michael. It appears likely to me that he is equating Michael with the Angel of the Lord, or the theophanic preincarnate Christ --at least that is within the realm of possibility. To do so is not necessarily to deny Christ's full divinity, is it?

When Watts speaks of Christ's inferior nature, receiving rewards, it appears to me that he is speaking of Christ's human nature, as opposed to his divine nature, not denying his divine nature.

The rest of Watts's statement, it appears to me, is a discussion of Christ's full humanity. Theologians have differed as to what Christ "knew" in his humanity within the orthodox Protestant camp. Some have pushed the envelope too far in the direction of denying the communicatio idiomatum, others (Lutherans in particular) too far in the direction of confusing the two natures of Christ. Again, not necessarily a stunning indictment of Watts on the charge of heresy.

The rest of the article is opinions about Watts's views. Valid? Perhaps, but not without stated proof. It is possible that Mather and others were misunderstanding Watts, or that Watts was being unclear.

To my mind, after this article, the jury is still out. Watts may well have been completely heretical on the doctrine of the Trinity. THis article, however, just because it has a ton of quotes and footnotes from secondary sources, simply does not prove it. 

If I were a seminary prof, and this were handed in to me, I would give it an F and tell the author to go and research more primary sources.

Remember: 

"Save in the death of Christ my God."
"When God the mighty maker died, for man the creature's sin?"

Many hymnals change those lyrics, I realize. To me, if anything, they skate closer to patripassianism than to denying the full divinity of Christ. Yet, Watts was a poet, and it is likely these are simply metonymies.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 26, 2007)

The article may not meet your standards but it is sufficient to show that Watts was in error and that we have reason to be concerned about his views. 

I have no doubt that Isaac Watts was unclear about his views on the Trinity which makes it hard to pin him down as a Unitarian. This obfuscation, intentional or not, provides ambiguity and cover.

But it is undeniable (affirmed by the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and the Dictionary of National Biography to name a few sources) that Watts 1) denied that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to salvation and 2) believed that Arians should be reckoned as good Christians. He also denied the doctrine of reprobation.

Feel free to peruse his own writings on the subject of the Trinity here.


----------

