unite nonconformists on a common religious ground. He did not escape the criticisms both of the zealots who maintained a higher standard of ‘orthodoxy,’ that is to say of Calvinism, and of the class of thinkers who practically met the deism of the age halfway. According to Kippis (p. 307), the self-styled ‘rational dissenters’ especially regarded him as a trimmer, and thought his true place was with them. Yet he early defined his position (4 Nov. 1724) as ‘in all the most important points a Calvinist,’ and his later writings leave the same impression. He had been affected as a young man by the current discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity, and confesses that for some time he leaned towards the Arian view. His riper conclusion, according to Stoughton (pp. 110–11), ‘somewhat resembled the scheme of Sabellius,’ with the addition of a belief, which he shared with Dr. Isaac Watts, in the pre-existence of the human soul of our Lord. His tolerance extended to a recognition of the evangelical standing of the Exeter heretic, James Peirce (ib. ii. 144); and he declared that he would lose ‘his place and even his life’ rather than exclude from the communion ‘a real christian’ on the ground of Arian proclivities (Kippis, ut sup.) On the other hand, he admitted Whitefield to his pulpit, a step which subjected him to strong remonstrance from the London supporters of his academy (Corresp. iv. 274 sq.). His daughter said in after life, ‘The orthodoxy my father taught his children was charity’ (ib. v. 63 n.) In church government Doddridge expresses himself (7 Dec. 1723) as ‘moderately inclined’ to congregationalism; but he was not tied to forms, and his example did much to render nugatory for a long period the ecclesiastical distinction between the English presbyterians and congregationalists. At Northampton he was relieved of some of his pastoral work by the appointment (26 Feb. 1740) of four ‘elders,’ of whom two were young ministers (Job Orton was one of them). His congregation did not increase under his ministry; there were 342 church-members at the date of his first communion in Northampton; by the end of 1749 the number stood at 239, and it seems to have still further declined under his immediate successors.
The truth is, Doddridge had too many irons in the fire. Orton laments (Letters, i. 4) ‘his unhappy inclination to publish so much,’ and ‘his almost entirely neglecting to compose sermons and his preaching extempore.’ Doddridge's manuscripts include many sermons written out in full. His correspondence heavily taxed his time, as he had no amanuensis; on one occasion he says that after writing as many letters as he could for a fortnight, he had still 106 to answer.
At an early stage in his career as a tutor Doddridge came into conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities. Wills, vicar of Kingsthorpe, Northamptonshire, complained that one of his students had preached in a barn in his parish. Reynolds, the diocesan chancellor, directed the churchwardens to present Doddridge unless he held the bishop's license. Doddridge refused to accept any license, and was cited to appear in the consistory court on 6 Nov. 1733. In the following December his house was attacked by a mob. This drew expressions of sympathy from Lord Halifax and other public men. Aided by the London committee of dissenting deputies, Doddridge carried the legal question to Westminster Hall, where on 31 Jan. 1734 the judges granted a prohibition in his favour. The case was renewed in June, when Reynolds pleaded that the prohibition had been illegally issued. Proceedings, however, were stopped by a message from the king, George II. In 1736 he received the degree of D.D. from the two universities at Aberdeen. From 1738 his academy was subsidised by the Coward trustees [see Coward, William, d. 1738].
Doddridge's equipment for the work of his academy was serviceable rather than profound. He had a great and discriminating knowledge of books. Wesley consulted him on a course of reading for young preachers, and received a very detailed reply (18 June 1746). He knew and understood his public; his influence on his pupils was stimulating and liberalising. Doddridge made the use of shorthand, already common, imperative, adapting the system of Jeremie Rich. Each student carried away a full transcript in shorthand of his lectures, as well as of illustrative extracts. The mathematical form of his lectures (in philosophy and divinity), with the neat array of definitions, propositions, and corollaries, was borrowed from Jennings. Jennings, however, lectured in Latin; Doddridge was one of the first to introduce the practice of lecturing in English. A very elaborate system of rules for the academy exists in manuscript (dated December 1743, and subsequently revised). Orton complains (ib. ut sup.) that the rules were not enforced, that Doddridge did not keep up his own authority, but left it to an assistant to maintain regularity. He assigns this as the reason for his quitting the post of assistant. Owing to Doddridge's numerous engagements, ‘all the business of the day’ was thrown too late; and the students ‘lived too well,’ which was partly due to Doddridge's hospitality to visitors. The total number of his students was about
