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