Unitarianism in America | Page 9

of toleration,
liberty, and free inquiry.
The many and wide divergences of opinion which were an essential
result of the spirit and methods of Protestantism were shown from the
first by the Pilgrims and Puritans. In Massachusetts, stringent laws
were adopted in order to secure uniformity of belief and practice; but it
was never achieved, except in name. Antinomianism early presented
itself in Boston, and it was quickly followed by the incursions of the
Baptists and Friends. Hooker did not find himself in sympathy with the
Massachusetts leaders, and led a considerable company to Connecticut
from Cambridge, Watertown, and Dorchester. Sir Henry Vane could
not always agree with those who guided the religion and the politics of
Boston; Roger Williams had another ideal of church and state than that
which had come to the Puritans; and Sir Richard Saltonstall would not
submit himself to the aristocratic methods of the Boston preachers.
These are but a few of the many indications of the individualistic spirit
that marked the first years of the Puritan colonies. It was a part of the
Protestant inheritance, and was inherent in the very nature of
Protestantism itself. Although the Puritans had only in part, and with
faltering steps, come to the acceptance of the individualistic and
rational spirit in religion, yet they were on the way to it, however long
they might be hindered by an autocratic temper. In fact, the Puritans
throughout the seventeenth century in New England were trying at one
and the same time to use reason and yet to cling to authority, to accept
the Protestant ideal and yet to employ the Catholic methods in state and

church. In being Protestants, they were committed to the central motive
of individualism; but they never consistently turned away from that
conception of the church which is autocratic and authoritative.
[Sidenote: The Church of Authority and the Church of Freedom.]
Looked at from the modern sociological point of view, there are two
types of church, the one socialistic or institutional and the other
individualistic, the one making the corporate power of the church the
source of spiritual life, the other making the personal insight of the
individual man the fountain of religious truth. Such a church as that of
Rome may be properly called socialistic because of its corporate nature,
because it maintains that revelation is to, and by means of, an
institution, an organic religious body.[1]
Catholicism, whether of Rome, Greece, or England, makes the church
as a great religious corporation the organ of religious expression. Such
a corporation is the source of authority, the test of truth, the creator of
spiritual ideals. On the other hand, such a church as the Protestant may
be called individualistic because it makes the individual the channel of
revelation. It emphasizes personality as of supreme worth, and it makes
religious institutions of little value in comparison.
Practically, the difference between the socialistic and the individualistic
church is as wide as it is theoretically. In all Catholic churches the child
is born into the church, with the right to full acceptance into it by
methods of tuition and ritual, whatever his individual qualities or
capacities. In all distinctly Protestant churches, membership must be
sought by individual preference or supernatural process.[2] The way to
it is through individual profession of its creed or inward miraculous
transformation of character by the profoundest of personal experiences.
In all socialistic or Catholic churches--whether heathen, ethnic, or
Christian--young people are admitted to membership after a definite
period of training and an initiation by means of an impressive ritual. In
all Protestant churches, initiation takes place as the result of personal
experiences and mature convictions, and is therefore usually deferred
until adult life has been reached.
When we bring out thus distinctly the ideals and methods of the two
churches, we are able to understand that the Puritans were theoretically
Protestants, but that they practically used the methods of the Catholics.
This will be seen more clearly when we take the individualistic

tendencies of the Puritans into distinct recognition, and place them in
contrast with their socialistic practices. The Puritan churches were
thoroughly individualistic in their admission of members, none being
accepted into full membership but those who had been converted by
means of a personal experience. In theory every male church member
was a priest and king, authorized to interpret spiritual truth and to
exercise political authority. Therefore, in 1631 the General Court of
Massachusetts (being the legislative body) established the rule that only
church members should exercise the right of suffrage. This law was
continued on the statute books until 1664, and was accepted in practice
until 1691.
Because the individual Christian was accounted a priest, however
humble in learning or social position, he had the right to join with
others in ordaining and