Gen. John Adams Dix, the Union commander of the Department of Maryland, wrote in an 1861 letter to Francis Blair of President Lincoln's administration that "we are in the most danger on the Eastern Shore [of Virginia]." Dix did not exaggerate when he implied that Accomac and Northampton County embodied secessionist sentiment on the Delmarva Peninsula in 1861. Dix knew that the Eastern Shore of Virginia, the most southern region of Delmarva, heavily influenced its neighbors to the north. If it made a strong demonstration in favor of the Confederacy, the Eastern Shore of Maryland might go spiraling toward secession. It could also decrease Union sentiment and progress in lower Delaware. With this in mind, Dix decided to make a preemptive strike on the Eastern Shore of Virginia in late 1861. Although this campaign describes only part of the question that this thesis entails it embodies the overarching importance of what occurred in the area.¹ 1. Delmarva is a modern connotation denoting the peninsula made up by parts of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Susie M. Ames, "Federal Policy Toward the Eastern Shore of Virginia." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 69 (1961) : 432-459. / Master of Arts

Philip Doddridge (1702-51) was pastor of the Independent congregation meeting at Castle Hill, Northampton, and tutor of the Northampton academy from 1729 to his death in 1751. He is regarded as a leader of moderate Dissent during that period and the heir, theologically and pastorally, of Richard Baxter. He has been seen as forming a bridge between the more rational Dissenters, on the one hand, and the more conservative and orthodox wing of Dissent on the other. His thought has not, however, been the subject of a detailed analysis in the context of his time. This thesis sets out to conduct such an analysis in order to examine more closely his position within early eighteenth-century Dissent. Doddridge’s philosophical and theological views are considered in chapters two to five. Chapter two assesses the extent of his indebtedness to the philosophy of John Locke, examining also the views of Isaac Watts and showing how Doddridge and Watts modified Locke’s thought in some areas in order to accommodate Christian beliefs. In chapter three, Doddridge’s views on natural theology, natural law and reason are considered and the influence on him of Samuel Clarke, in particular, is examined. Turning to theology, chapter four looks at the use in early eighteenth-century Dissent of terms such as ‘Baxterian’ and ‘moderate Calvinist’ and then considers Doddridge’s doctrinal positions on a range of subjects which are generally considered to represent Baxterian theology. Chapter five examines Doddridge’s views on the key interconnected areas of confessional subscription, scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity. Practical subjects are then considered in chapters six to eight. Doddridge’s views on Christian piety are examined in chapter six. Chapter seven considers ways in which Doddridge sought to communicate, examining the audiences whom he aimed to reach, the ways in which he attempted to reach them and the content of what he wanted to say. The eighth chapter looks at the subject of identity and argues that Doddridge is to be viewed, not so much as a bridge between different wings of Dissent, but as a leader amongst moderate Calvinists. In conclusion, this thesis argues that Philip Doddridge sought to expound a Calvinist theology in the context of the philosophical and theological debates of his day and to promote an ordered Dissent focused on central evangelical truths and united around the language of scripture.