Unitarianism in America | Page 7

spiritual forces with the Bible, and he held
that revelation is but a republication of the truths of natural religion.
Tillotson was truly a broad churchman, who was desirous of making
the national church as comprehensive as possible; and he was one who
practised as well as preached toleration.
Not less liberal was Jeremy Taylor, who was numbered among the
dissenters. In the introduction to his Liberty of Prophesying he said,
"So long as men have such variety of principles, such several
constitutions, educations, tempers, and distempers, hopes, interests, and
weaknesses, degrees of light and degrees of understanding, it was
impossible all should be of one mind." Taylor justly said that in heaven
there is room for all faiths. His Liberty of Prophesying, Chillingworth's
Religion of Protestants, and Milton's Liberty of Unlicensed Printing are
the great expressions of the spirit of toleration in the seventeenth
century. Each was broad, comprehensive, and noble in its plea for
religious freedom. It has been said of Taylor that "he sets a higher value
on a good life than on an orthodox creed. He estimates every doctrine
by its capacity to do men good."[9]
Another advocate of toleration was John Locke, whose chief influence
was as a rationalist in philosophy and religion. While accepting
Christianity with simple confidence, he subjected it to the careful
scrutiny of reason. His philosophy awakened the rationalistic spirit in
all who accepted it, so that many of his disciples went much farther
than he did himself. While accepting revelation, he maintained that

natural knowledge is more certain in its character. He taught that the
conclusions of reason are more important than anything given men in
the name of revelation. He did not himself widely depart from the
orthodoxy of his day, though he did not accept the doctrine of the
Trinity in the most approved form.
One of the rationalistic followers of Locke was Samuel Clarke, who
attempted to apply the scientific methods of Newton to the
interpretation of Christianity. He tried to establish faith in God on a
purely scientific basis. He declared that goodness does not exist
because God commands it, but that he commands it because it is good.
He interpreted the doctrine of the Trinity in a rationalistic manner,
holding to its form, but rejecting its substance.
These men were widely read in New England during the eighteenth
century. In England they were accounted orthodox, and they held high
positions either in the national church or in the leading dissenting
bodies. They were not sectarian or bigoted, they wished to give religion
a basis in common sense and ethical integrity, and they approved of a
Christianity that is practical and leads to noble living.
When we consider what were the relations of the colonies to England
during the first half of the eighteenth century, and that the New
England churches were constantly influenced by the religious attitude
of the mother-country,[10] it is plain enough that toleration and
rationalism were in large measure received from England. In the same
school was learned the lesson of a return to the simplicity of Christ, of
making him and his life the standard of Christian fellowship. The great
leaders in England taught positively that loyalty to Christ is the only
essential test of Christian duty; and it is not in the least surprising the
same idea should have found noble advocacy in New England. That a
good life and character are the true indications of the possession of a
saving faith was a thought too often uttered in England not to find
advocacy in the colonies.
In this way Unitarianism had its origin, in the teachings of men who
were counted orthodox in England, but who favored submitting all
theological problems to the test of reason. It was not a sectarian
movement in its origin or at any time during the eighteenth century; but
it was an effort to make religion practical, to give it a basis in reality,
and to establish it as acceptable to the sound judgment and common

sense of all men. It was an application to the interpretation of
theological problems of that individualistic spirit which was at the very
source of Protestantism. If the individual ought to interpret the Bible
for himself, so ought he to accept his own explanation of the dogmas of
the church. In so doing, he necessarily becomes a rationalist, which
may lead him far from the traditions of the past. If he thinks for himself,
there is an end to uniformity of faith--a conclusion which such men as
Chillingworth and Jeremy Taylor were willing to accept; and, therefore,
they desired an all-inclusive church, in order that freedom and unity of
faith might be both maintained.
In its beginning the liberal movement in New England was not
concerned with the Trinity. It