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