It is estimated that about a thousand Meeting Houses were erected by
Dissenters in the twenty years following the passing of the Toleration
Act. After the death of Queen Anne others were built, but in no great
numbers. The prevailing impression of the state of religion in England
during the first half of the eighteenth century is a gloomy one.
Formalism and apparently an insincere repetition of the doctrinal
phrases imposed by the law was but too evident in the State Church.
Dissent had its bright features, but these grew dim as years went on. It
must be admitted that the odds were heavy against that party. Without
conforming no one could be appointed to public office, and the
'occasional conformity' of sharing the communion service at an
established church now and again in order to qualify was at length
forbidden by the Act of 1711. The sons of the Dissenting gentry and
manufacturers were excluded from the universities, and though a shift
was made by 'Academies' here and there, the excellence of the education
they might impart could not compensate for the deprivation of the social
advantages of Oxford and Cambridge. By an Act of 1714 schools for more
than a rudimentary education were forbidden to be taught by Dissenters.
Thus, we are not surprised to hear, considerable defection went on, and
early in the century congregations began to dwindle. As it proceeded
some became very small indeed, and many died out altogether.
The trusts upon which the Meeting Houses were founded were frequently
free from any close definitions of the doctrines supposed to be held by
the congregation. Much discussion arose in later years as to the purport
of this freedom; perhaps there was some expectation of changing opinion
in the future, but more probably the doctrinal status was taken for
granted. It must be remembered that no Dissenting preacher could legally
officiate without previously 'subscribing' to the doctrinal articles of
the Church of England or their equivalents in the Westminster Assembly's
catechisms. Thus, while the Dissenter might alter the terms of his
liturgy to a degree not allowed to the Churchman (though the latter
would in those lax days go pretty far sometimes), he was still supposed
to be 'sound' on the fundamental creeds. It would appear to be a
fortunate accident for Unitarian development in some of these old
Dissenting congregations that, either the prevalent understanding or a
hope for speedy inclusion in the national Church, or a prevision on the
part of liberal-minded men here and there, left so largely undefined the
basis of religious union among them, as congregations.
However that may be, it is certain that a degree of reluctance to
'subscribe' began to show itself, and this, we surmise, was often due to
other reasons than liberality pure and simple. That there were
broad-minded men who, while conscientiously orthodox themselves, refused
to exclude unorthodox ministers from their fellowship is shown by a
notable instance among the Baptists. Before 1700, Matthew Caffyn, one of
their body, being charged with Anti-trinitarian opinions, was still
retained in membership by vote of the General Baptist Assembly, this
being the first instance of any organization's formal acceptance of
latitude respecting the Trinity. In Ireland, deterred no doubt by the
harsh punishment of Emlyn, there was natural hesitation in avowing such
latitude; but in 1721 a division began in Ulster between those who
insisted on 'subscribing' the creed anew and those who opposed; and a
few years later the 'non-subscribers,' being excluded from the Synod,
formed a new Presbytery which in course of time became distinctly
Unitarian. The historic event for English 'non-subscription' was a
declaration made at a meeting of Dissenting ministers, Independents,
Baptists, and Presbyterians, held in 1719 at Salter's Hall, London.
Certain Exeter ministers had become unsound in doctrine, and refused to
renew their subscription to the creeds and articles, claiming to believe
'the Scripture'--a well-understood expression in those days. The
question of their exclusion was referred to London, and there again the
point of renewed 'subscription' was raised before the vote on the Exeter
case was taken. By seventy-three to sixty-nine it was decided that the
declaration of faith should be confined to 'the words of Scripture'--as
Sir Joseph Jekyll put it, 'the Bible carried it by four.' This was
widely recognized as setting open the door for liberty in matters of
religion, and the interesting fact should be recorded that Independents
and Presbyterians were found on both sides.
Here, then, we may for the present leave the English development; it was
slow, tentative, for the most part obscure. In one direction and another
the movement of thought might be perceived, in the Church, among the
'Congregationals,' or Baptists, or Presbyterians, as the case might be.
It was only long after that much preponderance of heretical opinion was
distinctive of Presbyterian congregations. In the Academies men like
_Philip Doddridge_ (1702-51), the hymn writer, were affording room at
least for ample discussion among the students, and moderate as his own
opinions were he is credited with having made so-called 'orthodoxy' a
byword. The Independents, Caleb Fleming and _Nathaniel Lardner_
(1684-1768), led the way to 'Humanitarian' views, the latter being a
learned writer of much influence. It is said that another great hymn
writer, Isaac Watts, finally shared the Humanitarian view. On the whole,
with some notable exceptions, the Dissenting preachers seem to have been
decorously dull, and uninspiringly ethical. Without the zeal of the
'enthusiast,' whom they severely scanned from afar, and seeking in all
things to prove that Christianity was so 'reasonable' as to be identical
with 'rational philosophy,' it is little wonder that when the popular
mind began to be stirred by a religious 'Revival' they were not its
apostles, but mostly its critics. This is precisely the point where we
may fitly turn to consider the growth of Unitarianism in New England.