Rational Dissenters in Late Eighteenth Century England

Abstract

Focussingon the final threedecades of the century, Dr Smith traces thedistinguishing features of the varieties of Socinian, Arian (High and Low), and Unitarian thought, and where they agreed and differed, with a nod to the Latitudinarians in the Established Church. One stated aim is to redress the balance of previous over-dependence on the Unitarian Joseph Priestley and the Arian Richard Price as representative thinkers. Here is a much broader range of correspondents that includes pulpit and pew and author, male and female where possible. Appendices table subscribers to publications and a biographical register illustrates the range of people involved. Rational dissenters were rooted in scripture (shades of the earlier Salters Hall debates) but did not draw the same conclusions as the Orthodox Dissenters, most pointedly on Trinitarian formulations. Their views on monarchy, slavery, liberty and the constitution were shaped by a reading of scripture. First and foremost, they were not political animals with religious ideas rather their theologywas the sourceof their political,moral andsocial views. However, when the attacks in print came, it was at theological radicals that orthodox writers like Andrew Fuller took aim while other commentators questioned political loyalty in the face of political upheavals in France, culminating in Priestley’s Meeting House in Birmingham being torched. Dr Smith does not see rational denominations or traditions as such but rather a culture of individuals and churches with shared views – ministers and lay folk. The number and strength of Arians and Socinians were eclipsed as the Unitarians became better organised, although no proposal is offered beyond this for why Arian views waned whilst Unitarian views waxed. Nor is much discussion given to the story of rational dissent among the General Baptists. An aspect that could have been explored in greater focus is how ecclesiology, organisation and even family loyalty shaped the story of rational dissent. Also, the influence of the academies and their tutors. And one always speculates how much the person in the pew understood the doctrinal niceties that differentiated the various Rational and Orthodox streams. By the turn of the century, Unitarians were emerging as an organised denomination. Some attempts were made to engage with the new working classes, but the subscribing and (presumably) reading of published works suggests a literate and better off audience. This is a well-researched and careful study of a significant period in the history of rational and orthodox Dissent. There is a helpful bibliography. It is noted with sadness that this volume has appeared posthumously.