The foregoing sufficiently illustrates the position confronting those
who at that time openly avowed their departure from the Trinitarian
dogma. Those who dared and suffered were no doubt but 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
Polish Unitarian Church fell under the persecution of both Catholics and
orthodox Protestants, and was finally crushed out in 1660.
Important for our present study is the fact that the literary output of
these Polish Socinians was both large and of high quality. Their
'Racovian Catechism' was translated into different languages, and early
found its way into England. James I promptly had it burned, despite the
fact that the Latin version was dedicated to himself! Other books and
pamphlets followed, and even if we abate something as due to the
exaggerating fears and suspicions of the authorities, there would seem
to have been no time as the seventeenth century went on when Socinian
literature was not widely circulated here, albeit at first in secret.
Into the details of this literature there is no need to go; it is
sufficient to observe its outstanding features. They correspond in the
main to the temper of the master mind, Socinus, a man who in the absence
of imaginative genius displayed remarkable talent as a reasoner, and a
liberal disposition considerably in advance of his times. The later
Socinian writings, preserved in eight large volumes issued by the
'Polish Brethren' (Amsterdam, 1666), exhibit in addition the results of
much diligent research and scholarship, in which the wide variety of
opinion actually held by the Fathers and later Church authorities is
proved, and the moral is drawn. In the presence of so much fluctuating
teaching upon the abstruser points of the creeds was it not desirable to
abandon the pretence of a rounded system complete in every detail? Would
it not he better to simplify the faith--in other and familiar words, to
reduce the number of 'essentials'? In order to discover these
essentials, surely the inquirer must turn to the Bible, the record of
that miraculous revelation which was given to deliver man's unassisted
reason from the perils of ignorance and doubt. At the same time, man's
reason itself was a divine gift, and the Bible should be carefully and
rationally studied in order to gather its real message. As the fruit of
such study the Socinians not only propounded an Anti-trinitarian
doctrine derived from Scripture, but in particular emphasized the
arguments against the substitutionary atonement as presented in the
popular Augustinian scheme and philosophically expounded in Anselm's
_Cur Deus Homo_. Socinus himself must be credited with whatever force
belongs to these criticisms on the usual doctrine of the death of
Christ, and it may be fairly said that most of the objections advanced
in modern works on that subject are practically identical with those of
three centuries ago.
Now there is good reason for believing that towards the end of the
seventeenth century this Socinian literature really attracted much
attention in England, and probably with considerable effect. But as a
matter of fact no English translation of any part of it was made before
John Bidle's propagandist activity in the middle of the century, and we
have the explicit testimony of Bidle himself and most of the earlier
Unitarians that they were not led into their heresy by foreign books. It
was the Bible alone that made them unorthodox.
A famous illustration of this is the case of _John Milton_ (1608-74). In
1823 a long-forgotten MS. of his was found in a State office at
Westminster, and two years later it was published under the editorship
of Dr. Sumner, afterwards Bishop of Winchester. The work is entitled _A
Treatise of Christian Doctrine_. It was a late study by the poet,
laboriously comparing texts and pondering them with a mind prepared to
receive the verdict of Scripture as final, whether in agreement with
orthodoxy or not.
The most ardent of Milton's admirers, and even the most eager Unitarian,
must find the book a trial; but the latter can at least claim the author
of _Paradise Lost_ as an Anti-trinitarian, and the former may solace
himself by noticing that here, as in all the rest, Milton's soul 'dwelt
apart.' He emphatically denies that it was the works of 'heretics, so
called,' that directed and influenced his mind on the subject. We may
notice here the interesting fact that another great mind of that age,
_Sir Isaac Newton_, has left evidence of his own defection from the
orthodox view; and his correspondent _John Locke_, whose views appear to
have been even more decided, is only less conspicuous on this point
because his general services to breadth and liberality of religious
fellowship are more brilliantly striking.
Locke's _Plea for Toleration_ is widely recognized as the deciding
influence, on the literary side, which secured the passage of the
Toleration Act in 1689. Deferring for the moment further allusion to the
position created by this Act, we must at once observe the scope of one
of Locke's works which is not so popularly known. This is his
_Reasonableness of Christianity_, which with his rejoinders to critics
makes a considerable bulk in his writings. In pursuance of the aim to
'reduce the number of essentials' and to discover that in the Christian
religion which is available for simple people--the majority of
mankind--Locke examines the historical portion of the New Testament, and
presents the result. Practically, this amounts to the verdict that it is
sufficient for the Christian to accept the Messiahship of Christ and to
submit to his rule of conduct. The orthodox critics complained that he
had omitted the epistles in his summary of doctrine; his retort is
obvious: if the gospels lead to the conclusion just stated, the epistles
cannot be allowed, however weighty, to establish a contrary one. Of
course, Locke was called a 'Socinian'; but the effect of his work
remained, and we should remark that if it looked on the one hand toward
the orthodox, on the other it looked toward the sceptics and
freethinkers who began at that time a long and not ineffectual criticism
of the miraculous claims of Christianity. Locke endeavoured to convince
such minds that Christianity was in reality not an irrational code of
doctrines, but a truly practical scheme of life. In this endeavour he
was preceded by Richard Baxter, who had written on the 'Unreasonableness
of Infidelity,' and was followed during the eighteenth century by many
who in the old Dissenting chapels were leading the way towards an overt
Unitarianism.