Unitarianism | Page 4

a few of those
who really shared in the heretical view; the testimony of orthodox
writers is all in support of this surmise. Equally clear is the fact that

while the religious authorities were thus rigorous a steadily deepening
undercurrent of opinion made for 'Latitude.' How far this Latitude
might properly go was a troublesome question, but at any rate some
were willing to advocate what many must have silently desired.
Apart from the extremists in the great struggle between High Church
and Puritans there existed a group of moderate men, often of shrewd
intellect, ripe scholarship, and attractive temper, who sought in a wider
liberty of opinion an escape from the tyrannical alternatives presented
by the two opposing parties. Even in connection with these very parties
there were tendencies peculiar to themselves, which could not fail in
the end to mitigate the force of their own contentions. The High Church
was mostly 'Arminian,' i.e. on the side of the more 'reasonable' theology
of that age. The Puritans were wholly committed to the principle of
democratic liberty, as then understood, and in religious matters set the
Bible in the highest place of authority. It could not be but that these
several factors should ultimately tell upon the solution of the problem
of religious liberty. But the immediate steps toward that solution had to
be taken by the advocates of Latitude. Among them were Lord
Falkland, John Hales, and William Chillingworth, the last of whom is
famous for his unflinching protest that 'the Bible, the Bible only, is the
religion of Protestants,' a saying which was as good as a charter to
those who based their so-called heresies on the explicit words of
Scripture. In the second half of that seventeenth century the work of
broadening the religious mind was carried forward by others of equal or
even greater ability; it is sufficient here to name Jeremy Taylor among
Churchmen, and Richard Baxter among Nonconformists.
There was, of course, a good deal of levity, the temper of the Gallio
who cares for none of these things. But this was not the temper of the
men to whom we refer. Their greatest difficulty, indeed, arose from
their intense interest in religious truth. They could not conceive a State
which should not control men's theology in some real way. Even Locke
did not advocate toleration for the atheist, for such a man (in his
opinion) could not make the solemn asseverations on which alone civil
life could go forward. Nor would he tolerate the Roman Catholic, but in
this case political considerations swayed the balance; the Catholic

introduced the fatal principle of allegiance to a 'foreign prince.' Taking
for granted, then, the necessity for some degree of State supervision of
religion, how could this be rendered least inimical to the general desire
for liberty?
The reply to this question brought them very close to the position taken
up by Faustus Socinus long before, viz. that the 'essentials' of a
Christian faith should be recognized as few and, as far as possible,
simple. Of course, it is from his name that the term 'Socinian' is derived,
a term that has often been applied, but mistakenly, to Unitarians
generally. The repeated and often bitter accusation brought against the
advocates of Latitude that they were 'Socinians,' or at least tainted with
'Socinianism,' renders appropriate some short account of Socinus
himself.
This man was one of the sixteenth-century Italian Reformers who were
speedily crushed or dispersed by the vigilance of the Inquisition. Those
who escaped wandered far, and some were at different times members
of the Church for 'Strangers,' or foreigners, to which Edward VI
assigned the nave of the great Augustine Church, still standing at
Austin Friars in the heart of the City of London. It is Interesting to
observe here that a Dutch liberal congregation lineally inherits the
place to-day. Careful investigation has shown that among the refugees
here in the sixteenth century were some whose opinions were unsound
on the Trinity; possibly they affected English opinion in some small
degree. Loelius Socinus (1525-62), uncle of Faustus (1539-1604), was
for a short time in London, but interesting thinker as he was, his
nephew who never set foot in England really exerted much more
influence upon English thought.
It was, however, in Poland especially that the influence of Faustus
Socinus first became prominent. That country, then flourishing under
its own princes, early became (as we have seen) the home of an
Anti-trinitarian form of Protestantism. Socinus joined this group, and
during the latter half of the sixteenth century effected much
improvement among them, organizing their congregations, establishing
schools, promoting a Unitarian literature. The educational work thus

begun achieved great success; but in his own lifetime Socinus met with
fierce opposition and even personal violence. He died in 1604; the