1 Cf. Memoirs of his Life and Writings, by his son; and his own True Narrative of the Proceedings against him, etc., prefixed to his Works, ed. 4 (London, 1746), vol. i; Wallace, Antitrin., iii, 503–538; William Turner, Lives of Eminent Unitarians (London, 1840–43), i, 57–88; Sparks, Collection of Essays, iv, 173–208.
3 See his Works, ed. 4, vol. i; also in Unitarian Tracts, vol. iv, and in Sparks, Collection of Essays, iv, 209–275.Answered by Emlyn's colleague, Joseph Boyse, A Vindication of the True Deity of our Blessed Saviour (1703); reply by Emlyn, General Remarks on Mr. Boyse's Vindication (1704).
5 The Blasphemy Act was from the beginning until its repeal in 1813 practically a dead letter. Edward Elwall, a Sabbatarian Baptist of Wolverhampton, who held Unitarian views, was, it is true, arraigned for blasphemy at Strafford in 1726, but was discharged on a technicality, and the case was dropped. Cf. Lindsey, Sequel to the Apology, etc. (London, 1776), pp. 10–17; The Triumph of Truth, being an account of the Trial of Mr. Elsvall, etc., in Joseph Priestley, Works (London, 1817–32), ii, 417–429; ‘Memoir of Mr. Edward Elwall,’ Universal Theological Magazine, i(1804), 283–287.
7 Besides works already mentioned there were A Vindication of the Worship of the Lord Jesus Christ on Unitarian Principles (1706); The Supreme Deity of God the Father Demonstrated (1707);several tracts in controversy with the Rev. Charles Leslie (1708);several on the text I John v. 7 (1715–20); and a confutation of a work on the Trinity by some London ministers (1719),all included in the collected edition of his works in 3 volumes, ed. 4 (the best), London, 1746.
9 On the Academies, cf. Toulmin, Historical View, pp. 215–241; Irene Parker, Dissenting Academies in England (Cambridge, rgr4); Colligan, Arian Movement, chap. Viii; do., Eighteenth Century Nonconformity (London, rgrg), chap. x; Alexander Gordon, Addresses Biographical and Historical (London, rgzz), chap. iii; Herbert McLachlan, The Unitarian Movement in the Religious Life of England (London, rg34), pp. 71–140; do., English Education under the Test Acts (Manchester, 1930; Olive Grif6ths, Religion and Learning, A Study in English Presbyterian Thought from the Bartholomew Ejections (r66z) to the Foundation of the Unitarian Movement (Cambridge, r935)•
10 For the full list cf. McLachlan, English Education, pp. 6–15. Of the larger and more important ones in their relation to our movement may be especially mentioned those at Findern, Northampton, Daventry, Exeter, Warrington, Carmarthen, Hoxton, and Bridgwater: For an account of Warrington Academy cf. Herbert McLachlan, Warrington Academy, its History and Influence (Manchester, rg43); Henry Arthur Bright, Historical Sketch of Warrington Academy (Liverpool, r8gg); and a series of articles by V. F., in Monthly Repository, viii (r8r3).
14 Cf. Tayler, Retrospect, pp. 399–432; Skeats, Free Churches, pp. 258–266; Colligan, Arian Movement, pp. t36–r40; John Leland, View of the Principal Deistical Writers, etc. (London, r757); Hunt, Religious Thought, iii, i59–t96, 377–3845 Abbey and Overton, English Church, i, 527–529.
15 In 1717 one Hubert Stogdon, a young Presbyterian divinity student from Hallot's Academy at Exeter, who had shown such Arian sympathies that he had little hope of being accepted for ordination by the local clergy, was privately recommended by three liberal Exeter ministers for ordination in another district. This action was censured by the Exeter Assembly of ministers two years later. Cf. Jerom Murch, History of the Presbyterian and General Baptist Churches in the West of England (London, i838), pp, x62x64; Joshua Toulmin, `Memoir of the Rev. Hubert Stogdon,' Monthly Repository, iv (r8o9), 57–62, 121–125, 247–255.
In the same year, Luke Langdon, candidate for a London pulpit, was rejected as an Arian, and the minority in favor of him seceded from the congregation. Again, in 1718, Martin Tomkins, who had studied at Utrecht with Lardner, and at Leiden, was forced after a year's ministry at Stoke Newington to resign his charge, on account of his Arian sympathies. Cf. The Case of Mr. Martin Tomkins (London, r7I9); Tomkins, 'A Letter in Defence of the Arian Hypothesis,' Theological Repository, iii (r795), 257–259.
16 Cf. Colligan, Arian Movement, p. 47. The literature on the Exeter controversy is extensive. Apart from the general account in Murch's History, and Turner's Eminent Unitarians, i, r04–rI2, the most important sources are in th_e controversial pamphlets of the time, such as James Peirce, The Case of the Ministers Ejected at Exeter (London, r7r9); (Josiah Eveleigh), Account of the Reasons why many citizens of Exon have withdrawn from the Ministry of Mr. Joseph Hallet and Mr. James Peirce (London, I'Jr9); Peirce, Defence of the Case of the Ministers, etc. (Exeter, r"fr9); Eveleigh, Defence of the Account, etc. (London, r7rg); (anon.) A Plain and Faithful Narrative of the Differences at Exeter (London, I'JI9); Peirce, The Western Inquisition (London, r7zo); (Enty, John), Answer to Mr. Pcirce's Western Inquisition (London, I'J2I). All summarized in
Thomas Hearne (comp.), Account of all the Considerable Books and Pamphlets that have been wrote on either side (London, r'7zo). See also Edmund Calamy, Historical Account of my own Life (London, r83o), ii, 403 ff; Frederick J. Powicke, `Arianism and the Exeter Assembly,' Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society (London), vii (r9r7), 34–431 Lant Carpenter, Letters on the Trinity Controversy, inserted in the Exeter Newspapers, etc. (Exeter, r8t5); v. notice in Monthly Repository, x (t8r5), r9z–r97; ibid., xii (i8tq), 5z3–5z5, 58z–585• For a comprehensive account from a strongly orthodox standpoSnt, cf. David Bogue and James Bennett, History of Dissenters (London, r8o8), iii, zr4–z49.
19 Vindiciae Fratrum Dissentientiumi in Anglia, etc. (Londini, r7ro); in reply to William Nichols, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae (Londini, hqto). It is to be noted that in this work (p. 157) Peirce declares that among the Dissenters there is no Socinianism; but in the English translation (iqr7) this statement is lacking.
21 Throughout all this eighteenth century controversy, Arianism was a term of broad and loose connotation, by no means identical with the heresy of the fourth century. It might denote a variety of defections from the orthodox doctrine, but it commonly denoted belief in the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and denial of the rightfulness of paying supreme divine worship to Christ.
23 Later Lord Barrington. He was at just this time very desirous, in view of measures pending in Parliament, that nothing be done to create division among the Dissenters. Cf. Turner, Eminent Unitarians, art. on 'John Shute,' i; 22q–248.
25 His tomb is in St. Leonard's churchyard, where the Rector forbade the erection of a suitably inscribed monument; but a memorial tablet is in St. George's Meeting. Cf. Murch, History, pp. 411, 4z9–43r. For a memoir and list of his writings, see Protestant Dissenter's Magazine, ii (rq95), 448–454.
29 For good accounts see Golligan, Arian Movement, pp. 53–63; Skeats, Free Churches, pp. 243–248; Robert W. Dale, History of English Congregationalism (London, 1907), PP. 5z8–539; Alexander Gordon, 'The Story of Salters' Hall,' in his Addresses, pp. rzrr53; id.. 'The Salters' Hall Fiasco,' Christian Life, xiv (1888), 285 f, 296 f; Frederick J. Powicke, 'The Salters' Hall Controversy; Transactions, vii, 34–43. rro–r24, zr3–z33 (rgr7); Bogue and Bennett, Dissenters, iii, zz5–zz8.
For the sources, see the scores of contemporary controversial pamphlets in Dr. Williams's Library, London, of which the most important (all London, 1719) are the following. (John Shute Barrington), Account of the Late Proceedings at Salters' Hall; Thomas Bradbury, Answer to- the Reproaches cast on those who Subscribed, etc.; (Benjamin Grosvenor), An Authentic Account of several things done . . . at Salters' Hall; (anon.) A True Relation of Some Proceedings at Salters-Hall; James Peirce, Animadversions upon . . . A True Relation, etc.; (anon.) A Letter to the Rev. Mr. James Peirce in answer to his Animadversions, etc.; Peirce, A Letter to a Subscribing Minister, in Defence of Animadversions, etc.; (Thomas Bradbury) A Vindication of the Subscribing Ministers, in Answer to An Authentic Account, etc.; (anon.) A Reply to the Subscribing Ministers' Reasons, in their Vindication, etc. (in two parts); (Joshua Oldfield), An Impartial State of the Late Differences, etc.
31 Passed in r7r4,. and designed to suppress all Dissenting Academies and schools. [t was about to go into effect when Queen Anne died, and it remained practically a dead letter, though not repealed until 1719. Cf. Dale, Congregationalism, pp. 503–505.
32 Salters' Hall was perhaps the most prominent Presbyterian place of worship in London. It stood in Salters' Hall Court, but the original building is no longer in existence. cf. Walter Wilson, The History and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches and Meetinghouses in London, etc. (London, r8o8–r4), ii, r–6z.
This meeting has traditionally been referred to as the Salters' Hall Synod; but it was not a Synod in any proper use of the term, for its members were not delegated with authority from the bodies to which they belonged, nor were its actions binding upon their churches, since they carried only the moral authority of the individual members.
33 The record attendance, at the session of March 3, is said to have been 123 (Bradbury, Answer to Reproaches, p. rg); but the total number of signers to the Advices on either side was 133 (one having oddly enough signed on both sides), to which might be added 17 more who subscribed the doctrinal statements but not the Advices. Evidently some signatures of subscribers were obtained outside the meetings.
34 Tables of all the ministers on either side are given by Powicke, Salters' Hall Controversy, p. mz f; in Monthly Repository, xiv (18 19); and in T. S. James, History of the Litigation . . . respecting Presbyterian Chapels, etc. (London, i86q), pp. qog–qo9. See also the above cited Authentic Account, and True Relation; as well as the Layman's Letters to the Dissenting Ministers (London, i7r9), and Whiston's Memoirs, p. 22o f.
38 At the original division on February 24, nearly all the Independents voted with the minority, while the Baptists were divided ro to 9 (Skeats, Free Churches, p. 244 n.). The detailed figures as to the signatures to the Advices sent to Exeter by the Subscribers are: Presbyterians 23, Independents 25, Baptists 13, Total 61; or, if signatures to the doctrinal Articles be included, Presbyterians 31, Independents 32, Baptists 15, Total 78. Signatures to the Advices sent by Non–subscribers were Presbyterians 48, Independents 8, Baptists 17, Total 73. It is said that "great pains and some pressure were used to obtain the Subscribers' signatures." (op. Cit., p. 246.)
43 A joint fund was established by the Presbyterian and Congregational churches of London in r689, to assist poor ministers or congregations or students for the ministry. When the Congregationalists in 1695 withdrew and established a separate fund, the Presbyterian majority continued the fund and kept the Presbyterian name.
44 Cf. his Memoirs, p. 22 1. But he overlooked the fact that as early as rqoo, when the General Baptist preacher, Matthew Caffin, pastor of a church at Horsham, was called to account for disbelieving the divinity of Christ, though the General Assembly disapproved his views, and the case was long pending, they refused to excommunicate him. Cf. Adam Taylor, History of the English General Baptists (London, r8r8), i, 463–480; Joseph Ivimey, History of the English Baptists (London, r8r4), i, 54$–555, ii, 569–572; Crosby; English Baptists, iii, m6 f, z8o–285; iv, 3z8–34a. In i73o, at a great meeting of the General Baptists in London, it was unanimously voted not to make any human explications necessary to Christian communion. Cf. Whiston, op, Cit., p. 222.
46 Cf. Skeats, Free Churches, p. 266; Powicke, Salters' Hall, p. 123; and his article in Transactions of Unitarian Historical Society London, rqr8), i, ror–iZB, stating that no more Non-subscribing churches then Subscribing ones became extinct owing to the "Arian blight."
55 At home it was answered by Isaac Watts, John Wesley, and David Jennings, Vindication of the Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin (London, 1741). In America, years afterwards, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, the very able champion of Calvinism in New England, wrote of it in the preface (p. xi) to his last work, published after his death (The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended; Boston, 1758), "No one book has done so much towards rooting out of these Western Parts of New England the principles and scheme of religion maintained by our excellent Fore-fathers, the Divines and Christians who first settled this country, and alienated the minds of so many from what I think are evidently some of the main Doctrines of the Gospel, as that which Dr. Taylor has published against the Doctrine of Original Sin. This book has now for many years been spread abroad in the land without any answer to it, and so has gone on to prevail with little controul."
In the North of Ireland a Calvinistic preacher is related to have said to his flock from the pulpit, "I must warn you, my brethren, against a book called the Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, written by one John Taylor, of Norwich, and which has lately been printed at Belfast, and sent all round the country, to pervert the people from their good old faith. I desire that none of you will read it; for it is a bad book, and a dangerous book, and an heretical book; and, what is worse than all, the book is unanswerable." Cf. John Taylor, History of the Octagon Church, Norwich (London, r848), p. 27, n.
58 Op. cit., p. 300, appended to Towgood's A Dissent from the Church of England fully justified, etc., ed. 4 (Boston, 1768), and separately (London, 1777), P. 7. Also cited in Manning's Sketch, infra, p. 62.
1 Cf. Francis Blackburne, The Confessional, ed. I (London, 1766), p. 30. Bishop Burnet complained (History of his own Time, Oxford, 1823, vi, 172), that the greater part subscribed the Articles without ever examining them, and that others did it because they must do it, though they could hardly satisfy their consciences about some things in them.
2 The authorship was not avowed, but it was long afterwards discovered that the compiler and editor was John Jones, Vicar of Alconbury in Huntingdonshire. He had been a student of Carmarthen College and was a patron of it. Cf.. Monthly Repository, ii (1807), 349.The work was carefully summarized in a series of papers in the Gentleman's Magazine, xix (1749–50), 413–415, 437–439;cf. also 416, 508–510, 539 f, 547–550. In the following year it was supplemented by An Appeal to Common Reason and Candor, by the same author.
3 Though it was allowed to pass under his name, since he had signed the introduction to it, it is said to have been the work of a young clergyman in his diocese. It was ably answered by Archdeacon Randolph of Oxford, in A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity from . . . an Essay on Spirit (Oxford, 1754). Cf. Sparks, Collection of Essays, vi, 237–263;; Hunt, Religious Thought, iii, 303–308.
6 Cf. Theophilus Lindsey, Apology, closing paragraph; do., Historical View, p. 477f; sketch of Robertson's life by John Disney, Gentleman's Magazine, liii (1783), 745–750; by Joshua Toulmin, Monthly Repository, i (1806), 169, 225 f; Turner, Eminent Unitarians, ii, 5–24; Thomas Belsham, Memoirs of Theophilus Lindsey (London, 1812), pp. 44–46.
11 Cf. Hunt, Religious Thought, iii, 308–313; see also (anonymously compiled by Blackburne) A Collection of Letters and Essays in favor of Public Liberty; etc. (London, 1774). Gentleman's Magazine, xli (1771), 405–407; xlii (1772), 263–265,gives a considerable list of writings in this controversy; but the completest bibliography is that compiled by Dr. John Disney, A Short View of the Controversies occasioned by the Confessional and the Petition to Parliament, etc. (London, 1773),in two parts. It comprises 110titles which, together with 26 more, are all bound up in the 14 volumes of Disney's personal collection of Clerical Petition Tracts in Dr. Williams's Library, London, prefaced by a brief review of the whole matter, with names of the speakers in the debate in Parliament and of the members that voted for the petition.
13 A Short and Seasonable Application to the Public, etc., by Tyro Theologicus, A.M. (London, 1768). The author presently became openly Unitarian in his beliefs, though retaining his living, maintaining that he was within his rights; and for nearly forty years he was left undisturbed. But in 1806 he preached and published a sermon denying that Christ was God or was miraculously born. Complaint was made, and in 1808 he was prosecuted in the church courts for heresy and blasphemy, was adjudged guilty, and when 72 years of age with a wife and seven dependent children, was deprived of his living. His case excited wide sympathy, and the Unitarians of his time organized relief for him. He died 1813. Cf. Monthly Repository, iii (1808), 274–277, 282–284; also his tract, An Unitarian Christian Minister's Plea for adherence to the Church of England, etc. (London, 1808).
14For the text of the proposals see Blackburne's Works, vii, 1–12; cf. vol. i, p. xl. Of the several Feathers Taverns that first or last existed in or near the Strand, the one that seems most likely was that opposite St. Clement Danes, probably on the south side between Arundel and Essex Streets.
15 Text in Blackburne, Works, vii 13–19;cf. Gentleman's Magazine, xli (1771); 599–601; xlii (1772), 61–63. For a list of the 197 clerical signers, cf. Monthly Repository, xiii (1818), 15–18; also Theophilus Lindsey, Vindiciae Priestleianae (London, 1788), p. 47 f. Priestley was informed (cf. his Works, I, i,144) that only 24 were present, with Lindsey in the chair. He circulated the petition not only in Yorkshire, but also in Essex and in the West of England (loc. cit.). For a contemporary account of proceedings, cf. op. cit., pp. 144–163.
18 Cf. Parliamentary History of England (London, 1813), xvii,245–295; Annual Register for 1772 (London, 1885), xv, 86*–89*, 72, 17I–173; Gentleman's Magazine, xlii (1772), 61; Belsham, Life of Lindsey, pp. 53–67. Names of the debaters and of those voting for the petition are given in Disney's ShortView mentioned above, p. vii.
22Cf. Herbert McLachlan, Letters of Theophilus Lindsey (Manchester, 1920), p. 49 ff; Parliamentary History, ut supra, pp. 1325–1327;Lindsey, Vindiciae, pp. xi and 51.Entire abolition of tests was not accomplished until 1901, by Gladstone's government; cf. McLachlan, op.cit., p. 47.
24 It deserves recording here that it was not until nearly a hundred years later that Parliament in 1865 was persuaded to make a slight modification in the terms of subscription, so that one need only assent in general terms to the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, and declare one's belief that the doctrine therein is agreeable to the word of God. Two years later a Royal Commission took up the matter of the Athanasian Creed, which many wished removed. A petition signed by all the prominent High Churchmen and by over 1,200 clergy and laity protested against any change, Liddon and Pusey declaring that they would leave the Church if any change were made. The Creed was retained. Cf. Francis Warre Cornish, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1910), ii, 160–166.
25 Cf. Belsham, Life of Lindsey; Lindsey, Apology, pp. 202–223; Catharine Cappe, 'Memoir of Lindsey,' Monthly Repository, iii (1808), 637–642; iv (1809), 1–5; McLachlan, Letters; Gordon, Addresses; Turner, Eminent Unitarians, ii,25–81.
31 This chapel was built in 1763 to provide liturgical worship both for Dissenters that might prefer it, and for many of the established Church who complained of the Book of Common Prayer, but were repelled by the extemporaneous prayers of the Dissenters. But few of the latter were attracted, and the liturgy proposed was bitterly criticized both by churchmen and by Dr. John Taylor of the neighboring Warrington Academy. Numbers fell off, the liturgy was discarded, and after thirteen years the chapel was closed. Cf. A Form of Prayer . . . for the use of a congregation of Protestant Dissenters in Liverpool (London, 1763); John Taylor, The Scripture Account of Prayer, ed. 2 (London, 1762); Monthly Repository, viii(1813), 625–627; Christian Reformer, N. S. x (1854), 232–235; Colligan, Arian Movement, p. 113.
37 William Burgh, A Scriptural Confutation of the . . . Apology (Dublin, 1775); George Bingham, A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of England (Oxford, 1774); Thomas Randolph, A Vindication of the Worship of the Son (Oxford, 1775).
39 Lindsey did not propose to make needless alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, but besides the important ones above noted, he was in the interest of sincerity led to make sundry minor corrections, and in later editions some further changes were introduced, some antique expressions were modernized, and a few of the Psalms were omitted. The Apostles' Creed was retained until the fourth edition in 1793 (cf. Belsham's Life of Lindsey, pp. 336–341).It may be recalled that a little more than a century before the Antitrinitarians in Poland emphasized their adherence to this Creed as the authentic standard of the Christian faith.
40 This date may fairly be taken as the beginning of permanently organized Unitarianism in England, though the earlier ephemeral movements of Biddle, Emlyn, Sayer Rudd or any others that took no firm root are not overlooked.
42 The remodeled and enlarged chapel was continuously used for worship until 1885 though for some time attendance had seriously declined, and for the last four years there was no regular minister. The Essex Church then acquired new premises and built a handsome church building in Kensington (1887),the chapel property was acquired for the purposes of denominational headquarters by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association and the Sunday School Association (1886).The large assembly-room was reserved for large gatherings, and the rest of the building was remodeled and was used for offices and bookrooms until 1944, when enemy action rendered the whole building unfit for further service, and the headquarters were transferred to University Hall in Gordon Square. Cf. ‘Essex Hall, Past and Present,’ Christian Life, xxxix (1913), 216A.
43Jebb was perhaps the most prominent among half a score of Cambridge men who are sometimes ranked as Unitarian confessors. He was a brilliant student, took his two degrees, in due time was elected Fellow, and took orders in the Church. At the University he was conspicuous for his efforts favoring reform in the system of discipline and especially in instituting annual public examinations. On this account, as well as for the freedom he showed in his lectures, and his support of the movement against subscription, he was systematically opposed by influential circles, and was thus moved to resign his preferments in 1775. Then already in middle life he took his degree in medicine, and began practice in London; but implacable hostility still pursued him here, though it could not prevent him from winning a high professional reputation, nor keep him from taking an active part in movements for political and social reform. His health early became undermined, and he died in 1786 at the early age of fifty. Cf. Memoirs of his life by Dr. John Disney, in Jebb's Works (London, 1787); Turner, Eminent Unitarians, ii, 82–117; Jebb, Reasons for a late Resignation, in his Works, ii, 203–224.
45 Cf. Monthly Repository, xii(1817), 55 f; Turner, Eminent Unitarians, ii, 178–213; Disney, Reasons for Resigning the Rectory of Panton, etc., and Quitting the Church of England (London, 1783). After graduating at Cambridge Disney at once entered the ministry. He was troubled by the question of subscription, and never read the Athanasian Creed in church, and later made yet other omissions. He took part in the Feathers Tavern Association, and finally resigned his preferments. He was honored with the doctorate from Edinburgh in 1777, and published several valuable works. Upon Lindsey's retirement in 1793 Dr. Disney succeeded him, and served until 1805, when he too retired. In 1802 he substituted a new Prayer Book of his own composition for that which Lindsey had used; but on his retirement three years later the older book was restored to use.
47 Cf. Belsham's Life of Lindsey, pp. 179–194. It is interesting to note that a few years later Robinson wrote a large volume of Ecclesiastical Researches — his last work, not published until after his death (Cambridge, 792) — which includes, among other things, a digest of what continental writers had written on the history of Socinianism in Poland and of Unitarianism in Transylvania, thus for the first time introducing them in detail to English readers. See the extensive review by his biographer in George Dyer, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Robert Robinson (London, 1796), pp. 353–395.
52 Deserving of mention in the record, besides Jebb and Disney above named, are Edward Evanson (1731–1805), sometime vicar of Tewkesbury, who resigned his preferment (v. Monthly Repository, i (1806), 57);Robert Tyrwhitt (1735–1817),intimate friend of Jebb, who resigned his fellowship at Cambridge (v.Monthly Repository, xii (1817), 316;Paul Henry Maty (1745–87), who withdrew from the ministry (v.Gentleman's Magazine, lvii (1787), 92);Thomas Fyshe Palmer (1747–1802),who resigned his fellowship at Cambridge and withdrew from the Church, but preached to early Unitarian congregations at Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland for eight years, until in the general excitement caused by the French Revolution he, as a liberal, was accused by alarmists of exciting sedition, was judged guilty and sentenced to be transported to Botany Bay for seven years, and was overtaken by death while returning home (cf. Belsham, Life of Lindsey, pp. 351–358); Gilbert Wakefield (1756–81),who resigned after a short ministry and became a teacher and famous biblical and classical scholar (cf. his Memoirs, London, 1792);and William Frend (1757–1841), who was removed from his fellowship at Cambridge and banished from the University and spent the rest of his long life in literary pursuits (cf. Gentleman's Magazine, lxviii (1841),541.For further details of all these, cf. Lindsey, Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine, etc., pp. 477–55;Turner, Eminent Unitarians, ii, 82–312; Hunt, Religious Thought, iii, 265–269.
1 Cf. on the one hand, Philip Doddridge, Free Thoughts on the most probable means of reviving the Dissenting Interest (London, 1720); Isaac Watts, An Humble Attempt toward the Revival of Practical Religion among Christians, and particularly the Protestant Dissenters(London, 1731); and on the other, articles in the Monthly Repository, vols. iv, v (1809–10), passim.
3 For his life, cf. his personal Memoirs, continued by his son (London, 1806), reprinted in a centennial edition (London, 1904). The same, incorporating also his voluminous correspondence, and edited with notes by John Towill Rutt in vol. i (two parts) of Rutt's edition of Priestley's Theological and Miscellaneous Works in 26 volumes (London, 1831–32). For briefer treatment see John Corry, Life of Joseph Priestley (Birmingham, 1804); T. E. Thorpe, Joseph Priestley(London, 1906); Anne Holt, Life of Joseph Priestley(London, 1921); Alexander Gordon, ‘Priestley as a Pioneer in Theological Science,’ in Heads, pp. 102–134.
6 Dr. Richard Price (1723–91), son of a Congregational minister, educated at a Dissenting Academy in London, after twelve years of reading and study while acting as domestic chaplain, became minister (now an acknowledged Arian) of a suburban congregation at Stoke Newington (1758), and from 1770 on at the Gravel Pit meeting at Hackney. Besides being a diligent pastor, he wrote A Review of the Principal Questions and Difficulties in Morals (1758), which attracted wide attention; Observations on Reversionary Payments (1771), which first placed life insurance on a sound scientific basis, and led to his being considered the father of life insurance and old age pensions. He became an intimate and life-long friend of Priestley, Lindsey, Franklin and Lord Shelburne. As an outspoken friend of the American Colonies and correspondent with several prominent Americans he published (1776) Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Civil Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America, of which over 60,000 copies were sold, with profound influence on both countries. He became the most famous preacher in London. Squarely disagreeing with Priestley in doctrinal and philosophical views, he was joint-author with him of A Free Discussion of the Doctrines of Materialism and Philosophical Necessity (1778), in which with perfect good temper and unbroken friendship he maintained the spiritual nature and freedom of man. Aberdeen made him a D.D. in 1767, and Yale an LL.D. in 1787 on the same day with George Washington. Cf. Roland Thomas, Richard Price, Philosopher and Apostle of Liberty (London, 1924).
9 The writings mentioned above, though addressed to Dissenters, were virulently attacked by churchmen into whose hands they fell, and drew Priestley in his reply into his first important controversy; especially with Judge Blackstone, who in his Commentaries on the Laws of England had insinuated that the spirit, doctrine and practices of Dissenters as such were not calculated to make men good subjects. Cf. Priestley, Works, xxii, 362–379. He ere long became an accomplished pamphleteer, who seldom let pass an opportunity to reply to an attack or to correct a misunderstanding. As such he came to be regarded as the outstanding spokesman not only for the Unitarian interest, but for civil and religious liberty in general.
17 A prominent liberal statesman of the period. A friend of the Dissenters and of civil and religious liberty, he advocated a conciliatory policy toward the American Colonies; became premier, and negotiated the treaty of peace with America 1783; was created Marquis of Landsdowne 1784, and died 1785.
26 History of the Corruptions of Christianity (Birmingham, 1782); Dutch trans., Historie der Verbasteringen van her Christendom (Dordrecht, 1784–87); German trans., Geschichte der Verfälschungen des Christenthums(Hamburg, 1785). A summary of this work and of the ensuing controversies is given in the ‘Observations on Priestley's Writings,’ by Thomas Cooper, appended to Memoirs of Joseph Priestley(London, 1806), pp. 617–708.
27 The Hague Society for the Defence of the Christian Religion offered prizes for essays refuting Priestley's work, of which three were published ('s Gravenhage, 1787), by Abdias Velengius, Carolus Segaar, and Cornelis Gavel.
29 Priestley's part of the controversy is found in his Works, vols. xviii, xix; but the items on both sides may be most conveniently consulted in the two opposed collections: by Priestley, Letters to Dr. Horsley, etc., in three parts (Birmingham, 1783–86; by Horsley, Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley (Glocester, 1789). A partisan abstract of the controversy is given in an Appendix to Thomas Belsham, Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ (London, 1811), pp. 422–446. Cf. also Belsham, Claims of Dr. Priestley in the Controversy, etc. (London, 1814), reprinted from Monthly Repository, viii, ix (1813–14), passim; (Andrews Norton), ‘An Account of the Controversy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley,’ etc., General Repository (Boston), i, 26–58, 229–237; ii, 7–38, 257–288; iii, 13–124, 250–299 (1812–13).
30 Presently identified as the Rev. Samuel Badcock. He had hitherto been a Dissenting minister, and a fervent admirer and friend of Priestley; but having lost standing in the Dissenting ministry he conformed, became Priestley's bitter opponent, and took orders in the Church. He died soon after. Cf. Priestley, Works, xix, 533–538. Cf. Monthly Review (London), lxviii–lxxi (1783–84), passim.
33 It will be remembered (v. supra, p. 209, note 2) that these Acts made it illegal for one to hold public or municipal office without partaking of the Lord's Supper according to the rites of the established Church, which many Dissenters felt they could not conscientiously do.
34 Priestley listened to the debate, and afterwards wrote to Pitt, deprecating his opposition to the repeal. At the same time he did not hesitate to mention several further changes that the Dissenters would urge (cf. Works, xix, 111–134). Most desired were the right to hold civil offices, to enjoy full liberty of religious teaching, and to celebrate marriages in their own churches (op, cit., p, 180).
40 For contemporary accounts of the Birmingham Riots, see Priestley, An Appeal to the Public on the Subject of the Riots in Birmingham(Birmingham, 1791), in his Works, xix, 345–508, also in the Appendix, pp. 540–600; William Hutton, ‘Narrative of the Riots in Birmingham,’ in his Life(Birmingham, 1818), pp. 151–218; (Martha Russell), ‘Journal relating to the Birmingham Riots,’ Christian Reformer, N. S. ii (1835), 293–304; John Ryland, ‘Recollections of Dr. Priestley,’ U. H. S. (London), iv (193o), 417–425; Bernard M. Allen, ‘Priestley and the Birmingham Riots,’ U. H. S. (London), v. (1932),113–132.
50 Notably the Rev. Thomas Fyshe Palmer of Dundee, sentenced for seven years to Botany Bay (cf. Belsham, Life of Lindsey, pp. 351–358), and barbarously treated; and several others at the same time (cf. Priestley, Works, I, ii, 221; xv, 530 f), all pronounced guilty on the slightest evidence or none at all.
51 Particular mention should be made of the Rev. Harry Toulmin (1766–1823), whose father, long minister at Taunton, became minister of the Birmingham New Meeting in the year of Priestley's death. He had been minister of a large congregation in Lancashire, but had praised the French Revolution too warmly, and soon after the Birmingham Riots found it best to emigrate to America in 1793. He settled first in 1794 at Lexington, Kentucky, where he was made President of the new Transylvanian College. Later he rose to eminence in the public life of the new States of Kentucky, Mississippi and Alabama, and became judge of the Federal Court. Cf. Monthly Repository, xiv (1819), 81 f; xix (1824), 179–181.
Click here to open the frame set built to read this document.
This page was last modified
Sunday 12 November 2006.